You mentioned the Jesus/Roman connection last time, but I don't see how it plays in this discussion, nor the rebellion thirty years later, so I ignored it. If it's so germane, can you explain why? Whose anger spilled over? and anger about what?
...you asked about laws that Jesus broke, sometime back. His demonstration and picketing was probably the most serious, but his actions were driven by his ANGER over the priesthood's lack of support for and duties towards thde Jewish peasantry, and you would need to read up on the dreadful infighting of the various Jewish factions inside, even as the Romans layed siege outside, about 30 years later.
Maybe something changed to where Jesus didn't think those dire sentences were necessary--maybe even that He brought the Holy Spirit to help correct the diseases even after He was gone, ....
That's down to your faith...... after he was gone.
..........but His disciples apparently weren't impressed. They (John, for instance--hardly a "later follower") still seemed to think those sins were not going to be tolerated, at least by God in His kingdom:
Oh...please! Are you trying to tell me that 'John' of the Gospel was John BarZebedee? Really? G-John was written circa 1100-120 CE, so the boatman John would have needed to live to about 95-105 yrs for that.
[Rev 21:8 KJV] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death[Rev 22:15 KJV] For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie..
Why don't you just stick to what Jesus said and did during his lifetime? You rely on all these other names for your tenets.
The sentences are a bit of a distraction (can't use the red herring label too often or readers get tired of it). I'm willing to entertain the idea that the death penalty is not applicable anymore. But if there really is a sin involved, should there be a punishment? should there even be a recognition that a sin has occurred? Let's not just talk about homosexuality or transgenderism or transvestitism--is there any sin whatsoever that should be still considered wrong and to be avoided? And why? Apparently you think imposing harsh sentences is the big sin these days. But why is that any worse, in your mind, than any other? Or maybe blasphemy, since you brought it up--why is blasphemy any problem?
Neither your country nor mine entertains the ideas that LGBTQIA folks are criminals for simply being LGBTQIA folks! Imo you are thinking and debating in 'dinosaur' mode.
By whose standard are you going to judge? Does the majority get to decide what's right and wrong?
Yes, the majority, and that means that your ideas are out in the cold.
Why do you get to call people bigots and haters (which are very hateful things to say!),....
..... quite objective observations, I would day....
.... but I don't? Just because a majority of people agree with you? That's the opposite of the law that you said was meant to protect the weak.
On the contrary...... in these cases the majority is protecting the minorities! And extremist viewpoints are not popular with the majorities of either of our countries.
....and a majority of Christians over here (as is our Synod) is prepared to distance itself from puritanical extremism. Jesus did not say or do anything to support such puritanical positions as I have read about in recent weeks, here.
