Dang, but Darwinists have no brains. You advocate judicial punishments. Are you sinless?Must be nice to be sinless.
Stupid beyond repair.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Dang, but Darwinists have no brains. You advocate judicial punishments. Are you sinless?Must be nice to be sinless.
Read John 8. What did Jesus say about casting stones at somebody who was guilty of a capitol crime?Dang, but Darwinists have no brains. You advocate judicial punishments. Are you sinless?
Stupid beyond repair.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
The gross abuse of this passage again!Read John 8. What did Jesus say about casting stones at somebody who was guilty of a capitol crime?
The gross abuse of this passage again!
Why?Read John 8.
Jesus was strictly FOLLOWING THE LAW. She was not executable according to the LAW!I don't agree with you. I think Jesus meant it when He told us to examine our own sins before we start passing judgement on others. I am well aware that this passage is frequently very narrowly interpreted and I think that is a mistake.
Would YOU cast the first stone?
Jesus did not ask for a witness, he asked for a sinless person to cast the first stone.Jesus was strictly FOLLOWING THE LAW. She was not executable according to the LAW!
Deu 17:5-7 KJV Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (6) At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (7) The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
Joh 8:7-11 KJV So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (8) And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. (9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. (10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? (11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
With NO WITNESSES there is no execution.
Why?
We have your standard, which says only a sinless man can convict.
That means for every crime, you would be forced to say: "Go and sin no more."
Your analysis is stupid beyond belief.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
So, according to you, Jesus was a law disrespecting Jew. You're wrong, as usual.Jesus did not ask for a witness, he asked for a sinless person to cast the first stone.
There are concepts that have primacy over forgiveness, justice and repentance being two.Forgiveness. What a radical concept.
Jesus did not ask for a witness, he asked for a sinless person to cast the first stone.
Read a little more carefully.... THEY were claiming to be witnesses!Jesus did not ask for a witness, he asked for a sinless person to cast the first stone.
Thank you for confirming that you are referring to post-pubescent teenagers as "child".Um, knew that already thanks.
Who is supposed to throw the first stone according to the Law of Moses?Jesus did not ask for a witness, he asked for a sinless person to cast the first stone.
Deuteronomy 17:7 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. |
Thank you for confirming that you are referring to post-pubescent teenagers as "child".
You're welcome. Under the law they're not regarded as adults or have the same rights.
Men cannot make laws unless they are in accord with God's law.Which law?
man's law or God's Law?
Why?
We have your standard, which says only a sinless man can convict.
That means for every crime, you would be forced to say: "Go and sin no more."
Your analysis is stupid beyond belief.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
No. Jesus is the Son of God who completed the Old Covenant and sealed the New Covenant with His blood. Jesus was teaching us about life under the New Covenant.So, according to you, Jesus was a law disrespecting Jew. You're wrong, as usual.
Support This from the New Testament.There are concepts that have primacy over forgiveness, justice and repentance being two.
But, no. Stick with your ridiculous understanding of how things should work.
What. a. moron.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk