Huckleberry
New member
:BRAVO:
The Death Penalty at the Heart of God
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So, are you saying that if there were two witnesses, Jesus would have let it all go ahead and not intervened? He wouldn't have said anything to the crowd about 'he who is without sin cast the first stone' and wouldn't have wrote in the ground which seemed to convict everyone to drop their stones and wander off?
Oh, and also how there was nobody left to condemn her then neither did He? Or do you think Jesus would have if a few had remained?
:think:
The Death Penalty would have prevented this:
Not only would the death penalty have prevented this, but each time something like this happens the death penalty needs to be administered quickly. In doing so, these events will occur less and less.
Instead, we are told by Christians and non-Christians that the death penalty is cruel...and who are we to judge when someone does something that we don't agree with.
Not only would the death penalty have prevented this, but each time something like this happens the death penalty needs to be administered quickly. In doing so, these events will occur less and less.
Instead, we are told by Christians and non-Christians that the death penalty is cruel...and who are we to judge when someone does something that we don't agree with.
Huckleberry
New member
Is that all that's required under the law? The same law God gave to Israel in the first place? The law Jesus had been teaching, and would continue to teach, all throughout His ministry?
This was a mob. They not only did not produce witnesses but they couldn't even claim the authority to judge the crime in the first place. Absent a judge to whom God has lent His authority to judge and punish the only one among that mob who could claim to do that would be one without sin. Which is to say, God Himself.
Apparently God wasn't in the crowd anywhere. Since no one else in the crowd could lay claim to perfect righteousness...there you go.
The point was never that we cannot judge and punish crimes. The point was that we can't do so outside the governing authority that God instituted and granted authority to do that. We individual human beings are not granted that authority precisely because we are not righteous as He is.
That's why that crowd dispersed when Jesus reminded them they were not without sin themselves. They had no right to judge and execute justice.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well how exactly was 'justice' dispensed in these times then?
For sure, this was a mob but would that have been all that unusual for the time, even with witnesses and an 'appointed' judge? I seriously doubt there'd have been any appeals process...
I think the crowd were convicted of a bit more than just their lack of authority to carry out "justice" also. They were convicted by their conscience and hopefully that had something to do with wanting to bludgeon a woman to death...
Brother Vinny
Active member
Yeah, which is why we'd have women wearing fake beards handling their stonings.
Huckleberry
New member
Yes, of course, but that is exactly what your conscience appeals to in such an instance. You aren't God and so don't have the authority (the "right", if that helps) to kill someone.
There's no "convicted of a bit more". That's exactly what the crowd was convicted of. It's what you would be convicted of if you'd gotten swept up in that crowd and then been confronted with this. You are as worthy of death as the adulterous woman is.
Me too, and I hope artie would too.
It's an awesome responsibility.
But just as I would willingly pull the switch on a mass murderer, or the trapdoor on a child molestor, I would be willing to execute God's will.
so to speak :chuckle:
awww man - I was all primed to watch Pulp Fiction tonight and now you've given me a hankering for Life of Brian.
Brother Vinny
Active member
"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!"
blessed are the cheesemakers
i guess he was talking about Lon
i guess he was talking about Lon
Brother Vinny
Active member
I loved John Cleese's summation later the same scene:
"Well, blessed is just about everyone with a vested interest in the status quo, as far as I can tell."
I've got it streaming
:wave:
:wave:
Brother Vinny
Active member
You may now post an affirmative answer the next time someone asks if something posted here changed your mind. :chuckle:
Bradley D
Well-known member
No change of mind here. If you want to line out the "Word" of God that is up to you. But I will stay with it.
"as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Joshua 24:15).
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, who exactly were appointed the arbiters of carrying out or justifying such executions in these times? You're talking about communes here.
Well, explain that to those who would have us put people to death in the present for being gay or adulterous then.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It would do more than squirm SOD, and anyone who proposes such for adulterers in the present is even more bloodthirsty than those at that time...
:thumb:
There were supposed witnesses when Jesus spoke those words. But no one in that mob was following the law they were claiming to; you'd know that if you actually knew the law against which you argue.
So, no, Jesus would not have allowed it to continue if two or three had remained, as there were still aspects of said law being ignored.
There's a bit more to it than that.
Maybe if you picked up an Old Testament once in a while and read it you'd know the answer to your question.
And with that you just tore the very heart out of the gospel.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
Show me that in the text.
vs 3 and 4 State she was caught - this suggest by the requirements of the law had been met.
Jesus nowhere makes any reference to the requirements of Deuteronomy or the number of witnesses. In fact he says she should be stoned which again contradicts your argument.
He does however introduce the concept that only the innocent should punish her and this is what saves her.
Then he as the man without sin who could cast first stonee he chooses not to.
So your 2 witness theory bears no relation to the scripture, the teaching of John or the ministry of Jesus. Why do you lie about Jesus and his teaching ?
vs 3 and 4 State she was caught - this suggest by the requirements of the law had been met.
Jesus nowhere makes any reference to the requirements of Deuteronomy or the number of witnesses. In fact he says she should be stoned which again contradicts your argument.
He does however introduce the concept that only the innocent should punish her and this is what saves her.
Then he as the man without sin who could cast first stonee he chooses not to.
So your 2 witness theory bears no relation to the scripture, the teaching of John or the ministry of Jesus. Why do you lie about Jesus and his teaching ?