He answered and said to them: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying: ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and ‘he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say: ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God ” — then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"
Matthew 15:3-9 NKJV
Instead of denying what God said: John 8:1 And Jesus went unto mount Olivet. [2] And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them. [3] And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, [4] And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. [5] Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?
Accept it as He tells you. Do you even care what God says?
Instead of denying what God 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.
Matthew 5:17-20 NKJV
Accept it as He tells it. Do you even care what God says?
Hint: He doesn't say the DP should be ended.
*That's you, Barbarian, teaching men to ignore the law.
Well, I don't know what a "profer" is and I don't know what you're talking about. The failing you have is that you have no respect for or knowledge of the law. This is obvious. You hate the death penalty and think Jesus overturned it.
This is the sum of your hubris and folly...and why you have to spend most of your time attacking messengers.
A woman and her little girl were visiting the grave of the little girl's grandmother. On their way through the cemetery back to the car, the little girl asked: "Mummy, do they ever bury two people in the same grave?"
"Of course not, dear," replied the mother. "Why would you think that?"
"The tombstone back there said: 'Here lies a lawyer and an honest man.'"
Instead of denying what God 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.
Matthew 5:17-20 NKJV
Jesus never called for killing people, innocent or otherwise. Because of your zeal to kill people, you can't see that Jesus was, in shaming the people into letting an adulterous woman go free, fulfilling the law, not "profaning" it as another person here suggested.
That's you, Barbarian, teaching men to ignore the law.
I guess he needs all the people on his side he can get, if he's going to have anything — even if it's just popular support — to back up his anti-scriptural ideas.
Well, given that He wrote the law — you know, the one that calls for the death penalty — we're just going to have to ignore your modern revision and stick with the Bible.
Because of your zeal to kill people, you can't see that Jesus — in shaming the people into letting an adulterous woman go free — fulfilled the law, not profaned it, as Town has suggested He did.
I didn't let her go; Jesus did. That should be enough for you. Is it?
I hate injustice, to be sure. What I object to is putting the innocent to death, a thing that happens too often as it stands. What I object to is a punishment without remedy when we get it wrong. What I believe I've already stated, along with why I do. If anyone wants to know about that you're the last person they should lean on for the understanding.
You declare that Jesus overturned the law, when He Himself declared that it would not be so "until Heaven and Earth pass away."
No, what I said was that at that point he foreshadowed his fulfillment of the law. And I told you why. I leave the posturing and declaration to the experts, like you.
You still making sacrifices at the temple? Because I've heard there's a great sale on doves at Home Depot today.
You aren't Him. And your exegesis is your own. So that's not the contest.
You already tried that bit of rhetorical misdirection. Wasn't true the last time and isn't true now.
Speaking of jokes:
A woman and her little girl were visiting the grave of the little girl's grandmother. On their way through the cemetery back to the car, the little girl asked: "Mummy, do they ever bury two people in the same grave?"
"Of course not, dear," replied the mother, "Why would you think that?"
"The tombstone back there said" 'Here lies a lawyer and an honest man.'"
This is the example you use to justify your rejection of the death penalty, despite the Bible's clear teaching.
You think the death penalty no longer stands, just as you recognize that sacrificing animals is no longer required.
You describe this as "fulfillment," but you replace one and throw out the other.
Jesus said He fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law, not that He threw it out.
So pick one. Should we throw out the law, or replace it with something you advocate?
Quit equivocating.
I hate injustice, to be sure. What I object to is putting the innocent to death, a thing that happens too often as it stands. What I object to is a punishment without remedy when we get it wrong. What I believe I've already stated, along with why I do. If anyone wants to know about that you're the last person they should lean on for the understanding.
I hate injustice, to be sure. What I object to is setting the guilty free, a thing that happens too often as it stands. What I object to is an action without remedy when we get it wrong. What I believe I've already stated, along with why I do. If anyone wants to know about that you're the last person they should lean on for the understanding.
The only difference between your assertion and mine is that mine aligns with God's word, while yours is counter to it.
Exegesis? I quoted the law. It says what it says. It's you who has invented the idea that the law no longer applies and in the supposed vacuum asserted your own standards.
Your supposition is that Jesus overruled the law of Moses.
I can show that what Jesus did was completely in accord with the law of Moses.
Matthew 5:17-18
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
That wasn't a "declaration in the form of a question."
It was a question. A challenging one, at that. You say that Jesus foreshadowed the fulfillment of the law. I asked what "fulfillment" looks like, because in some cases you throw out the law and in some you replace it. You invented a statute that you would like to see in place and then pretended it was an established rule. When shown that it was indeed a statute of your invention — no nation has mandatory "life" sentences for murder — you turn to the nonsense of: "That one was my answer to one of your declarations in the form of a question."
Respect the conversation. Stop confusing it with bizarre, convoluted sentences.
To the contrary. I think the state can impose it and its imposition is lawful. I oppose it for a number of reasons to do with justice and, on a moral level, as a moral consideration, believe that Christ's fulfillment of the law removed its necessity.
Jesus said He fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law, not that He threw it out.
I know. He also let a woman go who should have been killed for her transgression. When you ignore that to try to hide behind the improprieties on the part of her accusers, ignoring that Christ himself recognizes her guilt when he tells her to go and sin no more, you turn him into the worst version of a lawyer playing the technicality card that would infuriate you otherwise.
That's just one of the ways to recognize you're missing something, but you won't do it.
Well, you heard it. What you do after that is on you. I'm not going to keep listening to you peddling the same fish and responding with the same counter until you add it to your signature line.
You mean your exegesis coupled with an unwillingness to see something that upsets it.
To the contrary. I think the state can impose it and its imposition is lawful. I oppose it for a number of reasons to do with justice and, on a moral level, as a moral consideration, believe that Christ's fulfillment of the law removed its necessity.
I know. He also let a woman go who should have been killed for her transgression. When you ignore that to try to hide behind the improprieties on the part of her accusers, ignoring that Christ himself recognizes her guilt when he tells her to go and sin no more, you turn him into the worst version of a lawyer playing the technicality card that would infuriate you otherwise.
That's just one of the ways to recognize you're missing something, but you won't do it.
Well, you heard it. What you do after that is on you. I'm not going to keep listening to you peddling the same fish and responding with the same counter until you add it to your signature line.
You seem to have missed this post (which was intended for drbrumley), which explains that Jesus' encounter with the adulteress was NOT the first time He had forgiven an adulterer/ess and not required the death penalty, nor did He abolish the death penalty at those times either.
No, your claim is unfounded, that Jesus made it unnecessary that the death penalty be enforced, simply because it doesn't fit with the other times Jesus forgave adulterers without requiring the death penalty for them, yet still expected adulterers/esses to be put to death.
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:3-11&version=NKJV
First of all, Note that God had forgiven adulterers before...
Spoiler
Then the Lord said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover and is committing adultery, just like the love of the Lord for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes of the pagans. ” - Hosea 3:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea3:1&version=NKJV
... but He still required men to obey His laws.
Spoiler
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. - Hosea 4:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea4:6&version=NKJV
King David committed adultery and murder...
Spoiler
It happened in the spring of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they destroyed the people of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem.Then it happened one evening that David arose from his bed and walked on the roof of the king’s house. And from the roof he saw a woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to behold.So David sent and inquired about the woman. And someone said, “ Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?”Then David sent messengers, and took her; and she came to him, and he lay with her, for she was cleansed from her impurity; and she returned to her house.And the woman conceived; so she sent and told David, and said, “I am with child.”Then David sent to Joab, saying, “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” And Joab sent Uriah to David.When Uriah had come to him, David asked how Joab was doing, and how the people were doing, and how the war prospered.And David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house and wash your feet.” So Uriah departed from the king’s house, and a gift of food from the king followed him.But Uriah slept at the door of the king’s house with all the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house.So when they told David, saying, “Uriah did not go down to his house,” David said to Uriah, “Did you not come from a journey? Why did you not go down to your house?”And Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah are dwelling in tents, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields. Shall I then go to my house to eat and drink, and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.”Then David said to Uriah, “Wait here today also, and tomorrow I will let you depart.” So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next.Now when David called him, he ate and drank before him; and he made him drunk. And at evening he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but he did not go down to his house.In the morning it happened that David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it by the hand of Uriah.And he wrote in the letter, saying, “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retreat from him, that he may be struck down and die.”So it was, while Joab besieged the city, that he assigned Uriah to a place where he knew there were valiant men.Then the men of the city came out and fought with Joab. And some of the people of the servants of David fell; and Uriah the Hittite died also.Then Joab sent and told David all the things concerning the war,and charged the messenger, saying, “When you have finished telling the matters of the war to the king,if it happens that the king’s wrath rises, and he says to you: ‘Why did you approach so near to the city when you fought? Did you not know that they would shoot from the wall?Who struck Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? Was it not a woman who cast a piece of a millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you go near the wall?’—then you shall say, ‘Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.’ ”So the messenger went, and came and told David all that Joab had sent by him.And the messenger said to David, “Surely the men prevailed against us and came out to us in the field; then we drove them back as far as the entrance of the gate.The archers shot from the wall at your servants; and some of the king’s servants are dead, and your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.”Then David said to the messenger, “Thus you shall say to Joab: ‘Do not let this thing displease you, for the sword devours one as well as another. Strengthen your attack against the city, and overthrow it.’ So encourage him.”When the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband.And when her mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. - 2 Samuel 11:1-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Samuel11:1-27&version=NKJV
... yet God forgave Him.
Spoiler
Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered.Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit.When I kept silent, my bones grew old Through my groaning all the day long.For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; My vitality was turned into the drought of summer. SelahI acknowledged my sin to You, And my iniquity I have not hidden. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,” And You forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah - Psalm 32:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm32:1-5&version=NKJV
It was a conscious decision on God's part not to execute David. As Nathan said to David:
Spoiler
So David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die.” - 2 Samuel 12:13-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Samuel12:13-14&version=NKJV
Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth.For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children;That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children,That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments;And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God. - Psalm 78:1,5-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm78:1,5-8&version=NKJV
“If his sons forsake My law And do not walk in My judgments,If they break My statutes And do not keep My commandments,Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes. - Psalm 89:30-32 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm89:30-32&version=NKJV
And Psalm 119 (too long to quote here).
God forgave the New Testament adulterer just as He forgave Old Testament adulterers, in neither instance revoking His law. God has all authority to forgive the criminal and disregard temporal punishment. Contrariwise, Men must obey God and cannot ignore punishment.
In addition to all of that, the Pharisees wanted to accuse Jesus of rebelling against the Roman Empire:
A straight-forward answer to the Pharisees would have brought Jesus into premature conflict with Rome before His “hour had come.” Jesus solved this problem stating, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first”.
Christ often frustrated the Pharisees giving clever answers that thwarted their wicked intentions (Mat. 22:15-22; 21:21-27; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26).
Luke 18:20
20 [JESUS]Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.[/JESUS]
Paul knew this.
Romans 13:9
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The passage about the woman caught in adultery was all about Jesus defeating the trap set by the experts in the law by using the law.
It was not about Jesus breaking the rules to give mercy to the woman.
She may have gone away unpunished, but that is exactly what the law demanded because there were no longer the required two or three witnesses.
You seem to have missed this post (which was intended for drbrumley), which explains that Jesus' encounter with the adulteress was NOT the first time He had forgiven an adulterer/ess and not required the death penalty, nor did He abolish the death penalty at those times either.
Didn't miss it and never said it was the first. What I did say and note I stand behind and I suppose we'll just have to differ for the reasons set out prior and enough to make my part clear, whether or not anyone else finds merit, as some will and have and others not.
When you ignore that to try to hide behind the improprieties on the part of her accusers, ignoring that Christ himself recognizes her guilt when he tells her to go and sin no more, you turn him into the worst version of a lawyer playing the technicality card that would infuriate you otherwise.
Well, you heard it. What you do after that is on you. I'm not going to keep listening to you peddling the same fish and responding with the same counter until you add it to your signature line.
Didn't miss it and never said it was the first. What I did say and note I stand behind and I suppose we'll just have to differ for the reasons set out prior and enough to make my part clear, whether or not anyone else finds merit, as some will and have and others not.
He also let a woman go who should have been killed for her transgression. When you ignore that to try to hide behind the improprieties on the part of her accusers, ignoring that Christ himself recognizes her guilt when he tells her to go and sin no more, you turn him into the worst version of a lawyer playing the technicality card that would infuriate you otherwise.
The Law was written in such a manner that the majority of people who commit capital offenses would get off on just that technicality (lack of witnesses).
This would prevent a lot of innocent people from being put to death for crimes they did not commit and would let a lot of people that are guilty get away with it as well.
Do you assume that God did not know that more guilty would escape the punishment from the curse of the Law than would be put to death by the Law?
