What Kind Of Person Could "Execute" A Child?

[JudgeRightly]

Please do not attribute words to me that I did not say. Take your inserted parenthetical out of my post that you quoted and use the [/QUOTE] and [QUOTE] tags to fix your post.

(Strange that you don't know this one given your preference for the Old Covenant

Deuteronomy 22:25–27:25)

Did you mean to quote Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

Because the following (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) clearly statees that a woman who is raped is not guilty of any crime.

“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.But [RED]you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death[/RED], for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. - Deuteronomy 22:25-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:25-27&version=NKJV

Interestingly, Jesus did not ask those who had not committed adultery to cast the first stone, He asked for those without sin, meaning sin of any kind, to throw the first stone. IT would not seem the Jesus agrees with you. Who am I to believe? :eyeroll:

"The Jesus"?

What is this, WWE?

Jokes aside... What Jesus asked was this:

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, [JESUS]“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”[/JESUS] - John 8:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:7&version=NKJV

1) Jesus said "He who is without sin." He did not say, "He who is without sin of any kind."

Without what sin? The sin of adultery. This includes not only the act of sleeping with someone else's spouse, but also helping those who commit the crime to get away from the punishment. We call that being an accomplice after the fact.

Remember, they only brought the woman before Jesus, and not the man also, which was required by the law, even though they caught her in the act, so already they're in violation of the law), and because...

2) Jesus said "among you"

Their violation of the law in this "court" that they established, with Jesus as the judge, made them guilty as well. This is what Jesus was referring to when He said "those without sin," as they were guilty before the law, and could just as easily be tried for not bringing the man as well. They then backed off their accusations against the woman, because He could have justly condemned them for not adhering to the law, which would have made them hypocrites, bringing her in front of him to judge her and expecting to get away with their own violation of the law... Which fits Matthew 7:1-5, which says "don't be a hypocrite when you judge."

When they backed off, there ended up being no witnesses against the woman, and so Jesus did not condemn her, for on the testimony of one witness, no crime can be established, but only on the testimony of two or three witnesses a matter is established. There were no witnesses to say that the woman was guilty, therefore she could not be found guilty, because not even Jesus condemned her (which is what the text says; it does not say that Jesus forgave her, it says He did not condemn her, that's a huge difference).

I have never wondered that for a moment.

I never said you did. I did say, however, that you follow in their footsteps.

People are basically good when all their needs are met.

People are basically good?

You sure about that? One need only look at all the wars throughout history to show that man is not "basically good."

When those needs are not met, well, a lot of people are willing to do anything to meet them.

People are willing to do a lot of things just to get ahead of their neighbors, even when there's no need.

I don't even wonder why we have such a high recidivism rate here in the U.S. compared to someplace like Japan who actually punishes people. Without killing them. Fascinating case study.

The law teaches us what is wrong before God.

It also teaches what the punishment should be for those who violate God's law.

We transgress that law.

And the penalty for transgressing that law is separation, especially from God.

Under the Old Covenant, there were prescribed penalties for said transgressions. Under the New Covenant, there is forgiveness where there is repentance.

The New Covenant only applied to what came to be known as the "remnant," those who entered into a relationship with God through the law and faith. The New Covenant was put on hold when God appointed Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

That does not mean that there is not penalties.

Then what should the penalties be for crimes? I've asked you this before, and you have yet to answer.

What should the punishments be for:
Perjury?
Theft where the goods stolen are
- recovered?
- sold?
- destroyed?
- irreplaceable?
- sentimental?
- insignificant?
- surrendered?
Accidental destruction of property?
Common negligence?
Destruction of property?
Temporary injury?
Litigated dispute?
Assaulting someone?
Permanent injury?
Murder?
Kidnapping?
Deadly negligence?
Capital perjury?
Adultery?
Sodomy?
Bestiality?
Incest with:
- Mother?
- Mother-in-law?
- Sister?
- Aunt?
- Sister-in-law?
Rape?
Human sacrifice?
Manslaughter during crime?
Abortion?

Please respond to each of the above.

The question is whether we as Christians should be demanding death

As Paul said...

For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” - Acts 25:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts25:11&version=NKJV

And...

Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. - Romans 3:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:31&version=NKJV

or whether we should let civil law carry out its process while we as Christians work to save the soul of the criminal.

False dichotomy.

Christians should both advocate the death penalty for those who deserve death AND allow the government to carry out the execution of those convicted of a capital crime. Anyone convicted of a capital crime should be witnessed to (of course, Christians should witness to all, but especially those awaiting punishment) while awaiting their execution.

Even a murder who repents of his sin but is still executed will be welcomed into Heaven by God.

No one is saying he won't be. So what's your point?

I want as many people to be in Heaven as there can be.

So do I.

Which is why I want to use the method that produces the most believers in Christ as possible, especially for those guilty of a capital crime, and that, according to the Bible, is the death penalty, along with restitution and corporal punishment.

So is your motivation The Great Commission or fear of your neighbor?

My motivation is my love for God and love for my neighbor.

It seems that Peter and Jesus continued the above conversation and Jesus had this to say:

Matthew 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mathew+18&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23750g

Not one bit of that overturns "rebuke him, and if he repents forgive him."

So what's your point?

So are you a witness for Christ who will forgive the murderer and welcome them into His Father's Kingdom

Only if he repents. I cannot forgive a murderer for murder, because A) if I'm not the one murdered, I am not his victim, and B) even if I was the one murdered, I would still call for vengeance against him, as the martyrs under the altar do in Revelation. And I would still advocate (and if he's humble he'll recognize that he should be as well) that he should be executed for his crime.

or are you a witness for something/someone else?

:yawn:

 

[ok doser]

... People are basically good when all their needs are met.

Have you ever actually read the Bible? :freak:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Christ was confronted with an adulteress that was caught in the act and there were witnesses. He forgave her.

No, He didn't.

He didn't condemn her. There's a difference.

You mean this Matthew 7

Matthew 7 New International Version (NIV)
[h=3]Judging Others[/h]7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ² For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
³ “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? ⁴ How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
⁶ “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Read verse 5 again. Jesus is talking to hypocrites. He's not saying don't judge at all. He's saying don't be hypocrites WHEN you judge.

What is your measure Stripe? Are you willing for God to judge using your measure?

I never said I was without sin. Which is why I would never cast the first stone. Or any stone.

Then stop advocating for punishments for criminals.

Where did Jesus say that?

An assertion with out a cite to support it is just a lie.

[quote]Exactly incorrect. He teaches repentance first.

Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. Luke 17:3 NKJV

James 2:13: because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

I ask you again, what is your measure?

Coming from mister irrational himself, this is just funny!

No idea where your quote of him ends and where your response to him begins... Fix your formatting please.

So we are just a law unto ourselves so it matters not what we do. Aren't you just a ray of sunshine.

By the way, what did Peter and Paul argue about?

They argued about a lot of things.

Red herring. Stay on topic please.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
What does it mean if Jesus does not condemn you?

It means just that. You are not condemned, because you have not done anything worthy of condemnation. Ergo, no forgiveness is needed, because forgiveness is only for those who have done wrong and repented of it.

And none of them could cast that stone when Jesus asked them too.

Because they were guilty of not bringing the man as well as the woman to trial. Jesus would have condemned them for not bringing the man she was caught with, because the law demands that both be brought.

Jesus never said do not stone her, He simply said if you are without sin, any sin, cast the first stone.

NO, HE DIDN'T!

Honestly, you really need to stop attributing words to people who did not say those words.

He said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." NOT "let he who is without sin whatsoever." BIG difference!

That is rather a different standard than you are attempting to set by requiring somebody to not be guilty of that particular sin. I am unwilling to use your measure.

Why else would Jesus say "Don't be a hypocrite when you judge"?

What, precisely, does it mean then?

See above.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Have you ever actually read the Bible? [emoji33]:

Honestly, I don't think he ever has, with how often he misquotes it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, He didn't.

He didn't condemn her. There's a difference.

There is no meaningful difference. Read the passage. She was caught in the act. There were witnesses do this. And Christ did not condemn her for a crime she was caught in. Sure sounds like He forgave her for her sin.

Read verse 5 again. Jesus is talking to hypocrites. He's not saying don't judge at all. He's saying don't be hypocrites WHEN you judge.

He was pointing out that all of us are hypocrites when we judge others for their sins. That was His point. We are ALL deserve death for our transgressions of the law so none of us posses the purity required to judge purely.

Then stop advocating for punishments for criminals.

That would be foolish. An ordered society NEEDS laws.

They argued about a lot of things.

Red herring. Stay on topic please.

Its not a red herring and you know it. Paul was angry with Peter for a very specific reason and you know what it is. Peter wanted to keep the Gospel for Israel only and Paul wanted to take it the Gentiles as well. So who is the Gospel for? Israel only or is it for everybody?

It means just that. You are not condemned, because you have not done anything worthy of condemnation. Ergo, no forgiveness is needed, because forgiveness is only for those who have done wrong and repented of it.

But she WAS guilty. She was caught in the act. There were witnesses to this. It was adultery, a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. No small matter.

Because they were guilty of not bringing the man as well as the woman to trial. Jesus would have condemned them for not bringing the man she was caught with, because the law demands that both be brought.

Interesting thought experiment. Why didn't Jesus ask for the man to be brought forward as well? It seems that his identity would have been known since the woman was caught. Yet He didn't ask for the man. He simply asked for the person without sin to cast the first stone and then forgave the woman and sent her on her way.

NO, HE DIDN'T!

Well, yes, He did. Read the passage.

Honestly, you really need to stop attributing words to people who did not say those words.

He said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." NOT "let he who is without sin whatsoever." BIG difference!

Please continue to attempt to split that hair. There is nothing in that passage that allows you to attempt to parse that verse to say that Jesus was implying a specific sin.

Why else would Jesus say "Don't be a hypocrite when you judge"?

Because we should not be hypocrites. Take the case of adultery. People here advocate for the stoning of adulterers. Yet Jesus teaches us that the God's standard for committing adultery is merely looking at another woman with lust. Can you meet that standard? I cannot. Every now and again a woman passes through my life that causes me to have a thought that is less than loyal to me wife. I never act on this yet I cannot honestly deny that such thoughts have crossed my mind. According to God's standard for adultery, I should be stoned. I cannot, in good conscience, stone an adulterer for a crime that I am equally guilty of but completely forgiven for by Christ's sacrifice. Instead of saying to an adulterer, "God wants you dead!" I have to say, "God wants you to stop so you can be in Heaven with Him."

 

[CabinetMaker]

Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. - Numbers 35:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers35:31&version=NKJV

Also...

Deut. 19:13, 21; Pro. 6:30-31

That is not Jesus, that is God the Father.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Oh. So now you want no crimes to be punished.

OK. That's even stupider.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Still lying Stripe. That is a reasonable description when you so blatantly ignore what I have actually said and substitute your own words instead.

 

[Stripe]

Christ did not condemn her for a crime she was caught in. Sure sounds like He forgave her for her sin.

So why don't you advocate forgiving all criminals? You should be all for just letting them walk free with a simple "go and sin no more."

Hypocrite.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Still lying Stripe. That is a reasonable description when you so blatantly ignore what I have actually said and substitute your own words instead.

There's only two options: Either you want criminals punished or you don't. If you do, you're a hypocrite. If you don't, you're stupid.

Choose well.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

Please do not attribute words to me that I did not say. Take your inserted parenthetical out of my post that you quoted and use the [/QUOTE] and [QUOTE] tags to fix your post.

I didn't attribute it to you. I offered a parenthetical comment within your quote as is sometimes done by editors in way of adding a note to the author.

Did you mean to quote Deuteronomy 22:28-29?

Because the following (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) clearly statees that a woman who is raped is not guilty of any crime.

“But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.But [RED]you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death[/RED], for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter.For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. - Deuteronomy 22:25-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy22:25-27&version=NKJV

Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 ²³If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, ²⁴you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

What if the woman could not call for help because his hand was over her mouth. Or a gun was to her head?

"The Jesus"?

What is this, WWE?

Jokes aside... What Jesus asked was this:

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, [JESUS]“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”[/JESUS] - John 8:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:7&version=NKJV

1) Jesus said "He who is without sin." He did not say, "He who is without sin of any kind."

It is a meaningless distinction. You cannot honestly try to interpret that verse to mean that Jesus was asking for those only not guilty of that particular crime. As a side bar, what does it say about the community where Jesus asked for those who were not guilty of adultery to cast the first stone and NONE of them could do it.

Without what sin? The sin of adultery. This includes not only the act of sleeping with someone else's spouse, but also helping those who commit the crime to get away from the punishment. We call that being an accomplice after the fact.

What logical basis do you have for creating this argument? What allows to conclude that Jesus as asking about only the sin of adultery?

Remember, they only brought the woman before Jesus, and not the man also, which was required by the law, even though they caught her in the act, so already they're in violation of the law), and because...

The law requires that both be stoned. I am less sure that it requires that both be brought forward at the same time to be judged. The law is not specific about that. Whether the man was brought forth or not does not change the fact that the woman was guilty of the crime.

2) Jesus said "among you"

Their violation of the law in this "court" that they established, with Jesus as the judge, made them guilty as well. This is what Jesus was referring to when He said "those without sin," as they were guilty before the law, and could just as easily be tried for not bringing the man as well. They then backed off their accusations against the woman, because He could have justly condemned them for not adhering to the law, which would have made them hypocrites, bringing her in front of him to judge her and expecting to get away with their own violation of the law... Which fits Matthew 7:1-5, which says "don't be a hypocrite when you judge."

When they backed off, there ended up being no witnesses against the woman, and so Jesus did not condemn her, for on the testimony of one witness, no crime can be established, but only on the testimony of two or three witnesses a matter is established. There were no witnesses to say that the woman was guilty, therefore she could not be found guilty, because not even Jesus condemned her (which is what the text says; it does not say that Jesus forgave her, it says He did not condemn her, that's a huge difference).

So basically what you are saying is that Jesus held them accountable for sins OTHER than adultery and that is why none of them could cast the first stone - because they were all guilty of breaking other laws. Thank you for supporting the contention that "without sin" meant any sin.

People are basically good?

You sure about that? One need only look at all the wars throughout history to show that man is not "basically good."

Good in terms of what God defines as good, not so much. Good as in willing to help others in need of help, yes.

It also teaches what the punishment should be for those who violate God's law.

But Jesus completed that law and brought in the New Covenant under which we are forgiven, not condemned.

And the penalty for transgressing that law is separation, especially from God.

The penalty for rejecting Christ is eternal separation from God.

The New Covenant only applied to what came to be known as the "remnant," those who entered into a relationship with God through the law and faith. The New Covenant was put on hold when God appointed Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Nothing about these two statement are correct. The New Covenant has never been and is not now "on hold." The New Covenant is for all nations which is why Jesus commanded His Apostles to go forth and make believers of ALL nations.

Romans 3: ²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Then what should the penalties be for crimes? I've asked you this before, and you have yet to answer.

I will but parenthetically.

What should the punishments be for:
Perjury? (Jail time)
Theft where the goods stolen are
- recovered? (Jail time)
- sold? (Jail time and restitution)
- destroyed?(Jail time and restitution)
- irreplaceable? (Jail time and restitution)
- sentimental? (Jail time and restitution)
- insignificant? (Jail time and restitution)
- surrendered? (Jail time and restitution)
Accidental destruction of property? (Restitution)
Common negligence? (As befits the nature of the negligence)
Destruction of property? (Jail time and restitution)
Temporary injury? (Depends on whether there was criminal intent or not)
Litigated dispute? (As negotiated in the litigation)
Assaulting someone? (Jail time)
Permanent injury? (Assuming you meant there was criminal intent - jail time and restitution)
Murder? (Life time incarceration.)
Kidnapping? (Life in prison)
Deadly negligence? (Life in prison)
Capital perjury? (Prison)
Adultery? (Not a criminal act)
Sodomy? (Not a criminal act)
Bestiality? (Not a criminal act)
Incest with:
- Mother? (If a minor is involved then jail time for the adult, loss of custody)
- Mother-in-law? (This is not incest. This is adultery or rape depending)
- Sister? (If a minor is involved then jail time. If not, it is not a criminal act)
- Aunt? (If a minor is involved then jail time. If not, it is not a criminal act)
- Sister-in-law? (This is not incest. This is adultery or rape depending)
Rape? (I strongly favor incarceration and castration)
Human sacrifice? (Murder - see above)
Manslaughter during crime? (Life in prison. But only for the person who committed the murder.)
Abortion? (Jail time)

Note, I responded based on a civil criminal code. The sins behind each of these is a different matter entirely. You cannot legislate morality. Making something a crime may or may not stop an action but it will not prevent the sin. Remember the standard Jesus set when talking about adultery. You can be guilty of a sin without ever committing an actual crime.

As Paul said...

For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.” - Acts 25:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts25:11&version=NKJV

And...

Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. - Romans 3:31 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:31&version=NKJV

Verse 20: ²⁰ Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

False dichotomy.

Christians should both advocate the death penalty for those who deserve death AND allow the government to carry out the execution of those convicted of a capital crime. Anyone convicted of a capital crime should be witnessed to (of course, Christians should witness to all, but especially those awaiting punishment) while awaiting their execution.

I would not agree at all. As Christians we should be advocating ONLY for the gospel. When CHristians go forth calling for the death penalty we condemn people to hell rather that save them. I have tried to talk to homosexuals about Jesus. I will ask them if they have heard about God's love for us. They reply, "You mean the God that wants me stoned to death? Get lost!" When Christians advocate for the death penalty we close peoples hearts to the message of Christ and people die lost because of our arrogance. How many people have you condemned to hell because you closed their heart to Christ? Do you think God will be pleased that you lost one of His children that might have otherwise been saved if you had said God loves instead of God wants you dead?

So do I.

Which is why I want to use the method that produces the most believers in Christ as possible, especially for those guilty of a capital crime, and that, according to the Bible, is the death penalty, along with restitution and corporal punishment.

See above as to why Christians being strong advocates for the DP does more harm to the Gospel than good.

My motivation is my love for God and love for my neighbor.



Not one bit of that overturns "rebuke him, and if he repents forgive him."

So what's your point?

The point is that Jesus was saying you should always be ready to forgive them. There no limit to the number of times you should be ready to give forgiveness.

Only if he repents. I cannot forgive a murderer for murder, because A) if I'm not the one murdered, I am not his victim, and B) even if I was the one murdered, I would still call for vengeance against him, as the martyrs under the altar do in Revelation. And I would still advocate (and if he's humble he'll recognize that he should be as well) that he should be executed for his crime.

A murderer may well come to the realization that they deserve to die for their crimes. But our charge oas Christians is to make believers of all men.

 

[CabinetMaker]

So why don't you advocate forgiving all criminals? You should be all for just letting them walk free with a simple "go and sin no more."

Hypocrite.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I do advocate for forgiving all criminals. I also advocate for a criminal system that prosecutes and penalizes criminals. Both are required. The question is as Christians, should we be vocally be calling for the execution of people when doing so condemns them to hell because we close their hearts to the Gospel. How do you share the good news of Christ with a person to whom you have just told that God wants them dead?

 

[CabinetMaker]

There's only two options: Either you want criminals punished or you don't. If you do, you're a hypocrite. If you don't, you're stupid.

Choose well.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I answered this already but I will again. You will call me a hypocrite because you lack subtlety.

I advocate for a criminal system that prosecutes and punished criminals. It is a vital part of maintaining an ordered society.

I advocate for Christians to be ready to forgive those that sin against us. Our forgiveness should be as complete as Jesus forgave us.

I advocate for Christians to stop calling for death for crimes defined under Mosaic laws. Constantly calling for people to be stoned turns people away from God, not towards Him. As Christian, we are commanded to make believers of all men. We are not make people fear God.

 

[Stripe]

I do advocate for forgiving all criminals. I also advocate for a criminal system that prosecutes and penalizes criminals. Both are required. The question is as Christians, should we be vocally be calling for the execution of people when doing so condemns them to hell because we close their hearts to the Gospel. How do you share the good news of Christ with a person to whom you have just told that God wants them dead?

You're so confused.

Forgiveness is not what the topic is. We are discussing the law and justice. The law and justice should not be affected by whether we forgive.

This is why the Bible says to execute without pity.

If your only objection is that I should forgive murderers and rapists, that is stupid as well. It's not my place to forgive that which did not affect me directly.

My place is to uphold justice and the law, not pretend it has been eliminated.

You've introduced nothing but nonsense because you refuse to understand us or empathize with us.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

You're so confused.

Forgiveness is not what the topic is. We are discussing the law and justice. The law and justice should not be affected by whether we forgive.

This is why the Bible says to execute without pity.

If your only objection is that I should forgive murderers and rapists, that is stupid as well. It's not my place to forgive that which did not affect me directly.

My place is to uphold justice and the law, not pretend it has been eliminated.

You've introduced nothing but nonsense because you refuse to understand us or empathize with us.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You look at it only from a Mosaic Law point of view while I look at it through the teachings of Christ in the New Covenant.

I uphold law and justice but since Jesus rose from the dead, I no longer believe that law and justice is the purpose of faith.

You are wrong thinking I do not understand your position. I do. You are correct in thinking that I do not empathize with you over your position. I do not. I understand your position and I think it is wrong.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There is no meaningful difference.

Then you apparently don't know the definitions of "condemn" and "forgive."

Here you go:

Spoiler

con·demn kənˈdem/Submit verb verb: condemn; 3rd person present: condemns; past tense: condemned; past participle: condemned; gerund or present participle: condemning 1. express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure. "fair-minded people declined to condemn her on mere suspicion" synonyms:censure, criticize, denounce, revile, blame, chastise, berate, reprimand, rebuke, reprove, take to task, find fault with; More informalslam, blast, lay into; formalcastigate "he condemned the suspended players" antonymsraise 2. sentence (someone) to a particular punishment, especially death. "the rebels had been condemned to death" synonyms:sentence; More convict, find guilty "he was condemned to death" damned, doomed, lost, condemned to hell; censured, faulted, convicted; literaryaccursed "a condemned construction site" antonyms:acquit officially declare (something, especially a building) to be unfit for use. "the pool has been condemned as a health hazard" synonyms:declare unfit, declare unsafe "the house has been condemned" prove or show the guilt of. "she could see in his eyes that her stumble had condemned her" synonyms:incriminate, implicate; archaicinculpate "her mistake had condemned her" (of circumstances) force (someone) to endure something unpleasant or undesirable. "the physical ailments that condemned him to a lonely childhood" synonyms:doom, destine, damn; More consign, assign "his illness condemned him to a lonely life"

for·give fərˈɡiv/Submit verb verb: forgive; 3rd person present: forgives; past tense: forgave; gerund or present participle: forgiving; past participle: forgiven stop feeling angry or resentful toward (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake. "I don't think I'll ever forgive David for the way he treated her" synonymsardon, excuse, exonerate, absolve; More make allowances for, feel no resentment toward, feel no malice toward, harbor no grudge against, bury the hatchet with; let bygones be bygones; informallet off (the hook); formalexculpate "she would not forgive him" antonyms:blame, resent stop feeling angry or resentful toward someone for (an offense, flaw, or mistake). "they are not going to pat my head and say all is forgiven" cancel (a debt). "he proposed that their debts should be forgiven" used in polite expressions as a request to excuse or regard indulgently one's foibles, ignorance, or impoliteness. "you will have to forgive my suspicious mind" synonyms:excuse, overlook, disregard, ignore, pass over, make allowances for, allow; More turn a blind eye to, turn a deaf ear to, wink at, indulge, tolerate "you must forgive his rude conduct" antonymsunish

To forgive someone is to pardon someone of a sin or crime.

To not condemn someone is to not find someone guilty of a crime.

If someone has committed a crime or sinned, then they have done something that may or may not be forgiven.

If someone is not found guilty of a crime, then there is no reason to forgive them, for they haven't done anything found to be wrong.

Read the passage. She was caught in the act.

If she was caught in the act, then where's the man she was with? The law says that BOTH the man and the woman caught in adultery should be brought before a judge. They violated that law trying to trick Jesus.

And all we know is that they claimed to have caught her in the act, yet this was never verified, and could not be, because they did not have the man as well as the woman.

There were witnesses do this.

What witnesses? They all left because they were guilty of not following the law, in that they didn't bring the man with the woman, which casts considerable doubt on their claim of "in the very act."

And Christ did not condemn her for a crime she was caught in.

Christ didn't condemn her because there were no witnesses, not because He was being nice. The Law required two or three witnesses to condemn. There were none, so neither the law nor Jesus could justly condemn her.

Sure sounds like He forgave her for her sin.

Then you need to get your ears (eyes? :think checked.

Not condemning someone is not the same as forgiving someone.

He was pointing out that all of us are hypocrites when we judge others for their sins.

Then you have completely ignored not only the standard of righteousness required by the law during the dispensation of law, but also the fact that Christians are cleansed of sin when they accept Christ.

On the first point:

If you were a Jew living under the law, you were required to be righteous. If you were not righteous, and had committed a sin, then you had to be cleansed, through offerings or sacrifices.

These men were not without sin, meaning they were not keeping the law (as is evidenced by their failing to bring the man along with the woman), and, to use Matthew's phraseology, had beams in their own eyes while trying to remove a mote from someone else's eye. In order for them to have brought her before the judge (in this case (pardon the pun), Jesus), they had to be without blemish. They were not, and therefore could not accuse her justly.

On the second point:

If one is a Christian, he is without blemish already, cleansed by Christ's blood. His nature is "righteous and holy" even if he sins (which does happen). There is nothing he can do that will take away that nature of righteousness and holiness, because it's not HIS nature, but Christ's covering him, because Christ is a covering. Therefore, When Jesus said "don't judge, you hypocrites, first get the sin out of your own life, and then you can see clearly to judge others," He meant it!

That was His point. We are ALL deserve death for our transgressions of the law so none of us posses the purity required to judge purely.

Then why on earth would He tell us just a few verses earlier to "judge with righteous judgment"? (John 7:24)

Either He wants us to judge rightly, or He doesn't because we would be hypocrites for doing so. It cannot be both.

As I said above, those in Christ are pure, because we are covered by His blood. (Tied to this is the fact that we are not under the law any more, which means that the law that says "you must be without sin in order to judge," apart from already being fulfilled by Christ's blood for Christians, no longer applies to us.) We are already righteous, and as Paul says, "he who is spiritual judges all things," and:

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? - 1 Corinthians 6:2-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians6:2-5&version=NKJV

That would be foolish. An ordered society NEEDS laws.

Then you should advocate condemnation of things that are wrong, and God tells us what is wrong and what is right.

This "don't judge" meme is not Biblical.

Its not a red herring and you know it. Paul was angry with Peter for a very specific reason and you know what it is. Peter wanted to keep the Gospel for Israel only and Paul wanted to take it the Gentiles as well. So who is the Gospel for? Israel only or is it for everybody?

But she WAS guilty.

Not according to the law, she wasn't. Where are the two or three witnesses that would show she is guilty?

She was caught in the act.

According to what witnesses? Where is the evidence? Where's the man she was caught with?

There were witnesses to this.

Again, what witnesses? Where's the man she was caught with? Are there any other witnesses (evidences) that show her to have been caught in adultery?

Anyone (or any size group) can bring forth a woman and claim she was committing adultery.

Stronger evidence would to have brought her straight from the crime scene with the man she was having an affair with, AS THE LAW REQUIRED!

And that alone would not have been enough to convict her, as the first witnesses, those claiming to have caught her in the very act, who still had sin in their lives, and could not judge with righteous judgment, all left when confronted with that fact, and since the man was not brought with the woman, there was no evidence there to accuse her.

So, as there were no more witnesses against her, the law COULD NOT CONDEMN HER, neither could Jesus, who wrote the law.

It was adultery, a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. No small matter.

The law, also no small matter, requires two or three witnesses to justly condemn someone for a crime. One witness isn't enough. There were no witnesses standing around who could justly condemn the woman, therefore she could not be condemned.

Interesting thought experiment. Why didn't Jesus ask for the man to be brought forward as well? It seems that his identity would have been known since the woman was caught.

You could ask Him later, I suppose. The fact is, He didn't. Speculation on such doesn't really help the discussion.

Yet He didn't ask for the man. He simply asked for the person without sin to cast the first stone

And because none of the men were "without sin," meaning they still had sin in their lives that they had not dealt with according to the law they were under," none of them could cast the first stone.

and then forgave the woman and sent her on her way.

Again, nowhere did Jesus say He forgave her. He said "neither do I condemn you. . .".

And EVEN IF HE HAD forgiven her, by no means would it have meant that the punishment for adultery (which is the death penalty) was repealed.

God had forgiven adulterers before and even so still required the death penalty for adulterers afterwards. He didn't repeal the death penalty then, nor did he repeal it in John 8.

Well, yes, He did. Read the passage.

No, He did not say "he who is without sin, at all, cast the first stone."

He said, and I quote:

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.” - John 8:7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:7&version=NKJV

There is no "at all" in that passage.

Please continue to attempt to split that hair. There is nothing in that passage that allows you to attempt to parse that verse to say that Jesus was implying a specific sin.

See above.

Because we should not be hypocrites. Take the case of adultery. People here advocate for the stoning of adulterers. Yet Jesus teaches us that the God's standard for committing adultery is merely looking at another woman with lust. Can you meet that standard? I cannot.

It's funny how you say the penalty for adultery has changed, but you still put yourself under the very law that says adulterers (both the man and the woman) should be executed.

Looking at another woman with lust is a sin, but it's not a crime, nor could it even be enforced if it was.

Adultery is a crime. Looking at a woman with lust is not a crime, but it IS a sin.

All crime is sin. But not all sin is crime.

The law deals with crimes, and ONLY the laws specifically meant for Israel deal with sin that is not crime.

The rest of God's laws deal with sins that are crimes, that can be enforced in any nation by any government.

In Israel (especially for the Jews during Jesus' time), their laws were a much higher standard than the laws of the nations around them, because they were still under the laws dealing with sins that were not crimes.

Every now and again a woman passes through my life that causes me to have a thought that is less than loyal to me wife. I never act on this yet I cannot honestly deny that such thoughts have crossed my mind. According to God's standard for adultery, I should be stoned.

No, you shouldn't be. If you aren't saved, you would be guilty of sinning before God, and would be subject to the punishment of eternal separation from God. But if you're saved, your sins are forgiven, and cannot be brought against you. You cannot be condemned for something for which you have been forgiven.

Yes, lust is a sin of the flesh, but it is not a crime.

You seem to have an issue with determining what is only sin and what is both sin and crime.

I cannot, in good conscience, stone an adulterer for a crime

Yes, you can. You, Cabinet, should not, though. Why? Because you think you would be a hypocrite to do so.

If you are a Christian, then you are not condemned, because you have been forgiven.

YOU ARE NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING!

You are "without sin" (even if you sin) by nature, because Christ is your covering.

So judge with righteous judgment, and condemn adulterers, and advocate that they should be executed for their crime, but also witness to them, show them that there are only two places to go, and that they should choose life, which is the privilege of being with one's Creator for all eternity, and not death, which is separation from God.

that I am equally guilty of but completely forgiven for by Christ's sacrifice.

Placing yourself under the law tends to have the effect of condemnation.

If you are saved by Christ, then DON'T PUT YOURSELF UNDER THE LAW!

Lust is not a crime. Adultery is.

When dealing with crimes, don't deal with laws against sin only.

Instead of saying to an adulterer, "God wants you dead!"

God wants the adulterer to both repent and to be put to death. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

I have to say, "God wants you to stop so you can be in Heaven with Him."

Again, putting a criminal to death for his crimes IS NOT exclusive of wanting that criminal to repent.

That is not Jesus, that is God the Father.

You know what Jesus said about the law?

He said to keep "My commandments." And not once, but FOUR TIMES.

“If you love Me, keep My commandments. - John 14:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John14:15&version=NKJV

He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” - John 14:21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John14:21&version=NKJV

If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. - John 15:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John15:10&version=NKJV

This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. - John 15:12 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John15:12&version=NKJV

Christ called many things that the Father called His Christ's own.

There's a list here that shows that Jesus is God, in case you don't believe that, but also that everything that is the Father's is also Jesus': https://kgov.com/deity-of-christ

 

[JudgeRightly]

[/NOPARSE] and [NOPARSE]I didn't attribute it to you. I offered a parenthetical comment within your quote as is sometimes done by editors in way of adding a note to the author.




[/URL]
Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 ²³If there is a young woman, a virgin already engaged to be married, and a man meets her in the town and lies with her, ²⁴you shall bring both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death, the young woman because she did not cry for help in the town and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

What if the woman could not call for help because his hand was over her mouth. Or a gun was to her head?


It is a meaningless distinction. You cannot honestly try to interpret that verse to mean that Jesus was asking for those only not guilty of that particular crime. As a side bar, what does it say about the community where Jesus asked for those who were not guilty of adultery to cast the first stone and NONE of them could do it.

What logical basis do you have for creating this argument? What allows to conclude that Jesus as asking about only the sin of adultery?

The law requires that both be stoned. I am less sure that it requires that both be brought forward at the same time to be judged. The law is not specific about that. Whether the man was brought forth or not does not change the fact that the woman was guilty of the crime.


So basically what you are saying is that Jesus held them accountable for sins OTHER than adultery and that is why none of them could cast the first stone - because they were all guilty of breaking other laws. Thank you for supporting the contention that "without sin" meant any sin.

Good in terms of what God defines as good, not so much. Good as in willing to help others in need of help, yes.

But Jesus completed that law and brought in the New Covenant under which we are forgiven, not condemned.

The penalty for rejecting Christ is eternal separation from God.

Nothing about these two statement are correct. The New Covenant has never been and is not now "on hold." The New Covenant is for all nations which is why Jesus commanded His Apostles to go forth and make believers of ALL nations.

Romans 3: ²² This righteousness is given through faith in^[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,


I will but parenthetically.


Note, I responded based on a civil criminal code. The sins behind each of these is a different matter entirely. You cannot legislate morality. Making something a crime may or may not stop an action but it will not prevent the sin. Remember the standard Jesus set when talking about adultery. You can be guilty of a sin without ever committing an actual crime.



Verse 20: ²⁰ Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.



I would not agree at all. As Christians we should be advocating ONLY for the gospel. When CHristians go forth calling for the death penalty we condemn people to hell rather that save them. I have tried to talk to homosexuals about Jesus. I will ask them if they have heard about God's love for us. They reply, "You mean the God that wants me stoned to death? Get lost!" When Christians advocate for the death penalty we close peoples hearts to the message of Christ and people die lost because of our arrogance. How many people have you condemned to hell because you closed their heart to Christ? Do you think God will be pleased that you lost one of His children that might have otherwise been saved if you had said God loves instead of God wants you dead?

See above as to why Christians being strong advocates for the DP does more harm to the Gospel than good.



The point is that Jesus was saying you should always be ready to forgive them. There no limit to the number of times you should be ready to give forgiveness.


A murderer may well come to the realization that they deserve to die for their crimes. But our charge oas Christians is to make believers of all men.

Please put the punishments for crimes in the box bbcode tags instead of the quote tags.

It makes it easier for me to respond to it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I do not find Old Testament Christians to be inspired teachers.

You don't find the Apostle Paul to be an inspired teacher?
:shocked:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Adultery does not deserve the DP.

God thinks adultery deserves the death penalty.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Christ was confronted with an adulteress that was caught in the act and there were witnesses. He forgave her.

Jesus refused to condemn the adulteress that was caught in adultery when He looked around and found that there were no witnesses.
There is no mention of Jesus forgiving her.

 

[ok doser]

You don't find the Apostle Paul to be an inspired teacher?
:shocked:

Oh snap