Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Deliberate perjury is far removed from human error. There's plenty cases where evidence has pointed to guilt where no deliberate attempts to manipulate convictions have happened.
No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
- Status
Deliberate perjury is far removed from human error. There's plenty cases where evidence has pointed to guilt where no deliberate attempts to manipulate convictions have happened.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Only those without sin were allowed to cast a stone at a woman caught in adultery. Doesn't say anything about all crime being tolerated.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Someone's in denial...
Back to the red herring again.
Well, no, I don't, because you didn't actually answer the question.
We're talking about God speaking to and directly condemning David here, not some human court. Even so, even the king was subject to the law, especially in Israel, even though he likely wouldn't have been brought before the court.
Anyways, back to my question, which you still have not answered:
TRUE OR FALSE: God had to repeal the law against adultery to forgive David for his adultery.
TRUE OR FALSE: God has to repeal a law for Him to be able to forgive someone of the sin described therein.
There, I made it easier for you to answer.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ah, i see
so this only applies to the single sin/crime of adultery?
are you sure it didn't only apply to this one woman?
or perhaps to this one group of scribes and Pharisees?
or perhaps only to this one particular situation in which they were trying to trap Him?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So, David wouldn't have been subject to the same laws as the common folk then, would He? No, God wouldn't have to repeal a law in order to forgive someone who couldn't receive the criminal penalty for it anyway.
Calling my post to you a "red herring" is just avoiding the question. Do you think that Jesus would have acted any differently with any mob, any woman caught in adultery on any different day? If so why and if not why not?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So, you think that the words Jesus spoke to this particular mob were solely for them and the woman got lucky? That if it was a different group who weren't trying to trap Him and a different woman was brought forward that His words would have been different and He would have authorised her being bludgeoned to death ?
Sorry, but yes, he was subject to the exact same laws (and then some, even, as there were laws specifically for the king) as the rest of Israel.
The king was to keep a copy of the law next to him at all times, so that he would not depart from keeping it.
“Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites.And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes,that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel. - Deuteronomy 17:18-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy17:18-20&version=NKJV
That's not the question I asked, Arthur.
I asked:
TRUE OR FALSE: God has to repeal a law for Him to be able to forgive someone of the sin described therein.
Please answer the question I asked, and not the question you want to answer.
Calling it how it is.
It's attempting to lead the discussion away from my question without answering it.
I will not answer this until you satisfactorily answer my above question.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it was
only if you continue to ignore the fact that the scribes and the Pharisees, who were the experts of the Law, were in fact violating the Law by bringing only the woman before Jesus, specifically Leviticus 20:10, and that a reminder of their specific sin - the violation of the Law, makes more sense to me than a laundry list of pride, envy, covetousness, etc
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
answered in post 489
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You have been answered. David wasn't going to be criminally prosecuted for anything and you know it. He was in a position of power and he abused it. If you don't find my answer satisfactory then up to you, I see no reason to expand on it. I've already said that God didn't need to repeal a law in order to forgive him.
If you refuse to answer then up to you.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Then it would have been easy enough for Jesus to have pointed out that they were violating the very law they were supposed to be experts on. He didn't. He said that anyone without sin could cast the first stone. Not the sin of violating the law, not a specific sin, just sin.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and you think the prideful Pharisees and scribes, who were trying to trap Him into violating roman law so that He would be seized and executed - you think they would be shamed by a reminder that all men sin? I doubt it. Rather, I believe they would deny it, deny that they sinned, unless they were presented with a single specific sin, one which they could not refute in front of the crowd. Leviticus 20:10 fits that requirement.
which, the way you are interpreting it, would be a violation of the Law as well.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yes, the sin of pride could be one of the things that Jesus wrote on the ground. They were convicted by their consciences and all would have known that they were guilty of all manner of such. If it were simply a case of Jesus pointing out that they were in violation of the law then again, it would have been very easy for Jesus to point it out and rather silly for the mob to even test Him on it. Instead, Jesus says that if any of them are without sin then they can cast the first stone.
I'm not interpreting it, it's right there in the verse.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the way you are interpreting the verse, artie, would negate the Law by imposing requirements on its enforcement that would be impossible to meet
did Jesus come to negate the Law by making it unenforceable?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i tried finding "pride" in the list of Laws/sins that the scribes and Pharisees of first century palestine would have been working from - i can't find it - can you?
they're here, all 613 of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
How does one "interpret" “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”?
:AMR:
It's clear as day.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Try self righteousness, it doesn't alter my point anyway. The legalists of the time were given a sharp tongue for their puffed up sense of authority and were taken down a peg or two in not just this case in question.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
nope, that's not there either
you're listing sins that would not have been recognized as such by the pharisees and scribes of first century palestine
you're listing catholic sins (and by extension protestant)
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i interpret it as "one specific sin"
you interpret it as "any sin, ever" which opens a whole can of worms that you'd rather avoid
for example:
- Status