21 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe "death penalty" all started with sin against God. Then it expanded to
Remind me again how you interpret Jesus's teachings to support the death penalty for people who advocate violence?
sin against man. This evil in man increased to a point that God decided to
destroy all but one man and his family from the face of the earth. With
Noah, God made a new law for man that has never been repealed. It is
stated like this:
“ Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed;
for in the image of God, He made man. "
(Genesis 9:6 NKJV)
Christ was on earth to fulfill the will of God as was stated many times
in the New Testament. He consistently taught to obey the laws of God.
We know that the shedding of man's blood refers to the taking of man's
life, since we are told that the "life" is in the blood. (Do not murder
from the Ten Commandments.) Moses later used this idea for his own
laws of governing the tribes with, "An eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth."
Jesus the Christ said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the
Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to
you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means
pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the
least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in
the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your
righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you
will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that it was
said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in
danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."
(Matthew 5:17-22 NKJV)
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAre you saying anyone who does something violent should be put to death?
The "death penalty" all started with sin against God. Then it expanded to
sin against man. This evil in man increased to a point that God decided to
destroy all but one man and his family from the face of the earth. With
Noah, God made a new law for man that has never been repealed. It is
stated like this:
“ Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his b ...[text shortened]... rother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."
(Matthew 5:17-22 NKJV)
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI am going to use this "debate within a debate" fo illustrate my "Opinions vs Facts" issue of the other thread.
Firstly, the FACTS that I don't dispute:
God made a new law for man that has never been repealed. It is
stated like this:Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God, He made man. "
(Genesis 9:6 NKJV)
Christ was on earth to fulfill the will of God as was stated many times
in the New Testament.
He consistently taught to obey the laws of God.
True, that is what the OT says. I agree. It is a fact that anybody who reads can establish.
More on that later, let's just continue with the post:
Moses later used this idea for his own laws of governing the tribes with, "An eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth."
The words are correct, but the interpretation is not. Moses said these words NOT to encourage retaliation and revenge, but to LIMIT people to extract NO MORE than one tooth for one tooth!
More importantly, (and RJH must surely be very familiar with these words, because they come from the same passage in Math 5 that he quotes!) Jesus said: " You have heard that it was said (by Moses) an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, BUT I TELL YOU do not resist evil, but...turn the other check.. etc"
Taken together (with Jesus saying no part of the law will be cancelled) it means that the SPIRIT OF THE LAW always contained mercy.
Either RJH is pretty ignorant of the Bible, or he deliberately misquotes scripture and omits what does not suit him! THAT means he is giving his personal opinion, which is definitely chalengeable.
Let's get back to the first part, about Jesus "consistently taught to obey the laws of God". And specifically capital punishment.
Again, RJH must certainly know the story of the woman taken in adultery, no need to give him the reference.
The setting was a person caught in the act of committing a capital offence. Jesus' response was to say the now famous words that have become a common saying: Let him who is without guilt cast the first stone!
When they all left, convicted in their hearts, he said to the woman: "OK, I'm sorry, but I'll now have to stone you myself. I am without sin and guilt, and this is the Law of God that cannot be changed!"
Oops, sorry, that was the Gospel according to RJH! Actually, Jesus said "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more!"
My point here is that,
1: Yes, RJH quoted scriptures that you will find in the Bible, but
2: Intentionally or by accident ( 😳 ) he left out some other significant verses, which show that his interpretation is skewed.
If you are an orthodox Jew, the OT is all you've got. As a Christian, however, you should look what the NT has to say about any doctrines or teachings of the OT.
Makes sense?
22 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustThe reason Jesus did not condemn the woman to death is because the
I am going to use this "debate within a debate" fo illustrate my "Opinions vs Facts" issue of the other thread.
Firstly, the FACTS that I don't dispute:
[b]God made a new law for man that has never been repealed. It is
stated like this:Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God, He made man. "
(Genesis 9:6 N NT has to say about any doctrines or teachings of the OT.
Makes sense?
proof was not there. In that law, the man, caught in adultry with her,
was to be put to death, also. Where was he?
P.S. I think he left, didn't he?
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsno sir. he didn't condemn the woman because he was a bleeding heart liberal who didn't believe in capital punishment.
The reason Jesus did not condemn the woman to death is because the
proof was not there. In that law, the man, caught in adultry with her,
was to be put to death, also. Where was he?
P.S. I think he left, didn't he?
22 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritJesus was definitely not a liberal. He believed is strick observance of the Law.
no sir. he didn't condemn the woman because he was a bleeding heart liberal who didn't believe in capital punishment.
There was no one to provide proof of the crime. 😏
P.S. Jesus allowed the Jury to make their decision. Not quilty.
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsjesus was absolutely liberal. he altered the basic concept of the "law" -- from an 'eye to an eye' to 'turn the other face' - a complete reversal.
Jesus was definitely not a liberal. He believed is strick observance of the Law.
There was no one to provide proof of the crime. 😏
P.S. Jesus allowed the Jury to make their decision. Not quilty.
jesus was against the establishment of the 'church' (conservatives) of those days. he preached basic liberal thoughts - be kind to your neighbors, live for each other, no capital punishment, don't go after riches rather giver everything you have away, don't get involved in politics... the list goes on. jesus was the embodiment of liberalism.
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritYou would make a good JW. That is what they believe. But that is all
jesus was absolutely liberal. he altered the basic concept of the "law" -- from an 'eye to an eye' to 'turn the other face' - a complete reversal.
jesus was against the establishment of the 'church' (conservatives) of those days. he preached basic liberal thoughts - be kind to your neighbors, live for each other, no capital punishment, don't go afte ...[text shortened]... get involved in politics... the list goes on. jesus was the embodiment of liberalism.
wrong for Paul taught that Rome had the right to administer the death
penalty. And Paul was the apostle of Christ to the gentiles. 😏
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsif that's the case, JWs make much better christians than you because you have no idea what paul says, you just grab quotes out of context, probably from a death penalty support site.
You would make a good JW. That is what they believe. But that is all
wrong for Paul taught that Rome had the right to administer the death
penalty. And Paul was the apostle of Christ to the gentiles. 😏
let's see...paul got the death penalty, didn't he.
what he is saying in the quote you have taken out of context goes along the christian theme of submitting yourself to the ruling authority. it has nothing to do about supporting the death penalty.
for the christians, paul had a different set of rules:
romans 12:14
Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but [rather] give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance [is] mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
according to paul (and jesus), it is up to god to carry out judgement and death. it is not up to the christians.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritPaul believed the government has the authority from God to execute the wrath
if that's the case, JWs make much better christians than you because you have no idea what paul says, you just grab quotes out of context, probably from a death penalty support site.
let's see...paul got the death penalty, didn't he.
what he is saying in the quote you have taken out of context goes along the christian theme of submitting yourself to ...[text shortened]... nd jesus), it is up to god to carry out judgement and death. it is not up to the christians.
of vengence by the sword of death on him who practices evil. See below:
So Paul said, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged.
To the Jews I have done no wrong, as you very well know. For if I am an
offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to
dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me,
no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar."
(Acts 25:10-11 NKJV)
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no
authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by
God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God,
and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not
a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the
authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he
is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he
does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to
execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject,
not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of
this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually
to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes
are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
(Romans 13:1-7 NKJV)
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWhen you say "...the government has the authority from God [...]", which "government" are you referring to?
Paul believed the government has the authority from God to execute the wrath
of vengence by the sword of death on him who practices evil.