ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Sez who?
What Kind Of Person Could "Execute" A Child?
- Thread starter Arthur Brain
- Start date
Sez who?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So, you think that if there were a coupla witnesses around the account would have described the stoning of the woman? No writing in the ground or anything?
ttruscott
Well-known member
You mean like a Divine righteous Judge who knew the angelic looking child was really a psychopathic 6000 year old demon sown here by his father the devil (Matt 13:38-39)??? That kind of Person?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Um, no.
Hello. Stupid. Is there anyone at home in that cobweb-filled cranium of yours?
Jesus upheld the law.
If He had gone through Deuteronomy line-by-line, the woman would have been unconvicted.
The problem is: You refuse to think.
Jesus was explicit: "I did not come to overturn the law." "Not one letter of the law will disappear."
Your attempt to paint Him as being antithetical to the law shows that you have no understanding of scripture. But you've been told this a thousand times, which means ignorance is not your problem.
The topic is not faith.
The topic is not forgiveness.
The topic is not anything remotely related to the stupid, stupid things you bring up. The topic is the law and justice. You have invented your own standards of justice. Your ideas might be worth discussing, but you want to pretend they are scriptural.
But your only objection is emotionalism.
When you have something sensible to contribute, let us know.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
marhig
Well-known member
I think you need to read what Jesus said again
John 8
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?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, NEITHER DO I CONDEMN THEE: go and sin no more
Jesus didn't condemn her, because Jesus had compassion. Only he was able to stone anyone because only he was without sin, and he never, he forgave her and told her to go and sin no more. She never know Jesus before that, but after she met him she was to turn from sinning. Jesus said elsewhere to a man he had forgiven to go sin no more lest a worse thing come upon him.
Once we truly follow Jesus, we are to turn from wilful sinning, if we carry on then we will suffer the consequences.
Right Divider
Body part
I can't help it that you don't understand the text.
Right Divider
Body part
Where do you get such silly ideas?
Start believing the Word of God and you might understand some things.
I just believe the Word of God as written.
Give us the scripture and we can discuss it.
genuineoriginal
New member
Jesus didn't condemn her because there were no accusers.
It states that plainly in the verses you quoted.
Nowhere in those verses does it state that Jesus didn't condemn her because of His compassion.
You made that up.
The scriptures state that Jesus did not condemn her.
The scriptures do not state that Jesus forgave her.
Apologies for the long post.
That's what the "QUOTE=JUDGERIGHTLY;####" means. By leaving your response to my post within the "QUOTE" tags, you are INHERENTLY attributing words to me that I did not say.
That is called BEARING FALSE WITNESS.
It's a good thing that I'm not writing a book, and that this is a forum, otherwise you might have a point.
There are BBCode tags made available to use for a reason, Cabinet. You should use them.
Or even just take the list out of the QUOTE tags, and simply respond to it without attributing to me. That's acceptable on this forum, as far as I'm aware...
NOTE:
This passage is not talking about rape.
It's talking about a form of adultery.
A woman who is engaged to be married is considered to be that man's wife, because it should be expected that if a woman gets engaged to a man, it would be almost guaranteed that he would marry her.
The only difference between being engaged and being married is that the marriage hasn't been formalized yet, and that the two have not yet become one flesh.
With that in mind, also consider this:
It was expected (unfortunately, this isn't true today) that if a woman (especially if she was engaged to be married) (if she had any honor) was being propositioned to by a man (in other words, he was trying to seduce her), she would cry out so that everyone around her would know that this man was trying to seduce her, and he would at the very least, be shamed.
Considering both of the above, the meaning of the verse becomes clear:
If a woman who is engaged to be married doesn't cry out, but instead goes along with a man, and he lies with her, they are guilty of adultery, and should both be put to death, as the law says, because the man violated his neighbor's wife (she was engaged to the man), and she was complicit (she did not cry out in the town where everyone would have heard her)
Fair enough. I concede that the law does not specify that the man should be brought along with the woman.
All we have as evidence to that is the Pharisees' claim that she was caught in the very act, yet their testimony is cast into doubt because of what scripture says, that they were trying to trick Jesus.
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. - John 8:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:6&version=NKJV
You said:
Which has nothing to do with "willing to help others in need."
Man is basically evil. Just look at America with its social programs. People will gladly pass laws that take from their neighbors just so that their personal needs can be met.
Define "completed" please.
The New Covenant was for Israel, the same nation that the Old Covenant was made to.
Not only has the New Covenant been put on hold, but it also only applied to the Jews, and could only be accessed by people who entered the covenant of circumcision (in other words, only by those who became a Jew). One cannot currently enter into the New Covenant.
No argument there, but what does that have to do with punishing criminals?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
You should read the parable of the barren fig tree, and then compare it to what happened between Acts 1:1 and Acts 9:1. And then read Galatians 2:7-9.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — - Hebrews 8:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews8:8&version=NKJV
You need to pay attention to what Scripture ACTUALLY says.
And yet, aside from a very small number of trips made by only a handful of the Twelve, not one of them obeyed that command. They all stayed within Jerusalem and the surrounding area.
Good scripture. But it has nothing to do with the New Covenant.
The New Covenant makes the distinction between Jew and Gentile. On the other hand, in the Body of Christ, there is NO distinction.
Care to try again?
Next time, just remove the "QUOTE" tags from around the portion of my post you are quoting and add your "parenthetical".
That way I don't have to struggle with trying to copy and paste text from your post in an app on a mobile device.
Did you even bother to check to see what the Bible says about such crimes?
Is murder just a sin? or is it a crime also?
What's that supposed to mean? That you can't make laws against crimes?
Making something illegal does NOTHING to prevent crime.
We're not talking about things that are only sins.
We're talking about things that are both sin AND crime.
Jesus didn't "set" any standard during his earthly ministry.
He only corrected what people believed. If you compare what He said to what the law in the Old Testament, you'll find that they match.
And yet, we're not talking about things that are just sin here, we're talking about CRIME. Lust is not a crime, but it leads to death. Adultery stems from lust, which makes it a sin, but in addition to being a sin, it is also a crime, because it's acting out one's lust.
You keep trying to make this discussion only about the sin aspect of crimes, while trying to steer the conversation away from how the crimes should be punished by the government.
Which deals with sins, and not how crimes should be dealt with.
Good thing that your agreement with something is not necessary for it to be correct.
The Gospel INCLUDES the law, Cab. The law is the tool a Christian uses to bring the lost to Christ!
Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk,desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. - 1 Timothy 1:5-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:5-11&version=NKJV
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. - Galatians 3:19-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians3:19-25&version=NKJV
No, we don't. They are already condemned! When we tell someone who has committed a capital crime that they deserve to be put to death, we are telling them what their just punishment should be.
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. - John 3:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John3:18-19&version=NKJV
Good for you.
Have you ever tried loving them? And by love I don't mean telling them "God loves you." By love I mean telling them that what they're doing is destroying not only them but those around them.
And do you walk away or do you persist?
If that were true, then it should be impossible to reach people through condemning them. See below (Terry's Call).
Question: What do you tell a hoarder? Do you tell them that you love them and that what they're doing is ok? OR do you tell them that what they're doing is destroying their life, and that if they don't stop, they're going to die because of the conditions they're living in?
It's arrogant to warn people of their impending doom?
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. - John 3:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John3:18-19&version=NKJV
None, they are all condemned already. I just pointed the fact out to them.
You should listen to "Terry's Call." A homo called into BEL and condemned Bob for being against homosexuality and claimed to be a "gay Christian". You know what happened next? Bob called him a pervert.
https://kgov.com/terrys-call
Terry got saved that day, and, while unfortunately it was already too late for him to be treated (Terry had AIDS from his perverted lifestyle), Denver Bible Church bought him a bus ticket to come live out in Denver, but Terry died on the way there in Kansas City.
Terry is now in heaven, why? Because someone condemned him for being a homo.
It does more harm than good to say that murder is wrong and should be punished?
It does more harm than good to condemn adultery because not only does it destroy those who do it, but also has devastating effects on the family members of those involved?
It does more harm than good to condemn crime?
You are a fool, Cabinet.
It does more harm than good to NOT condemn crimes that lead to death.
Your argument seems to be "since my opponents don't mention forgiveness when advocating the death penalty for certain crimes, therefore they must not think that criminals should be forgiven."
That's called an argument from silence, and it is also incorrect on two things.
1) We advocate the death penalty, because we want criminals to be deterred from committing the crime in the first place.
2) We do not advocate that criminals should be forgiven. We advocate that criminals should only be forgiven IF THEY REPENT. And even then, if they have committed a capital crime, we advocate that they should STILL be put to death.
Our focus is not forgiveness, nor is it the topic of the thread, no matter how much you would like it to be.
Our focus is appropriate punishment for crimes.
You keep leaving out the most important part.
Someone has to repent before they can justly be forgiven.
That is the intent behind the death penalty...
Which does not contradict our position. So what's your point?
What if they don't repent, do you still advocate for forgiving them?
But you won't consider God's required punishments for criminals. Instead you'll go to man-made "civil criminal codes" to find punishments for crimes.
:think:
Even if the criminal doesn't repent?
There was a study done almost two thousand years ago on how many people, when confronted with their mortality, repented and turned to God.
50% of them did not repent, and the other 50% did.
How many people truly get saved in prisons today through prison ministries? Not many, right? In fact, many of the prisoners (especially those who are in prison for lesser crimes, would probably call themselves Christians.
I would say that prison ministries would get less than 33% of the ones they witness to saved (no, that's not an official number, but I can't seem to find any statistics on the matter).
So which is better at showing people that they need God? Prison ministries, or the death penalty?
50% or less than 33%?
I'm pretty sure Ray Comfort does it just fine. Just watch some of his videos on YT.
You tell them that there's a way out of eternal punishment, that if they accept Christ, even though they will die for their crime, they will be forgiven, and will be given eternal life. You present that as the alternative to being punished for all eternity for rejecting the God of righteousness.
Do you advocate that the judge should forgive criminals from their crimes?
What about criminals that don't repent?
What is that supposed to mean?
Why? God says that murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, those who commit bestiality, kidnappers, should all be put to death. What authority do you have to say they should not?
Because you say so?
The law (which, by the way, includes the punishments for breaking it) is a tutor that leads one to Christ. When you pervert the law, changing what it says, and saying that the punishments shouldn't be as harsh, you remove the law's purpose of bringing people to Christ.
Which does not go against our position.
Which goes against Scripture:
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. - Proverbs 9:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs9:10&version=NKJV
Advocating the death penalty for crimes that are worthy of death teaches the people that there is eternal death for those who reject God.
We look at it from GOD's perspective.
He says that those who commit crimes worthy of death should be put to death, those who commit crimes worthy of corporal punishment should be corporally punished, and those who commit crimes worthy of restitution should pay restitution.
You may uphold law, but you certainly don't uphold justice. Justice would be to punish criminals with the punishments given by God.
Where in the Bible does it say that God repealed the death penalty for murder? Where in the Bible does it say God repealed the death penalty for homosexuality? Where in the Bible does it say God repealed the death penalty for bestiality? For adultery? Where did he repeal the punishments for other crimes, such as theft, assault, negligence?
Then if, as you claim, you know our position, could you put our position, that you claim to know, into your own words?
--------
Ok, now for your answer to my request for appropriate punishments for crimes. Before I get into this, could you please tell me how long the prison sentences should be for the crimes where you said "Jail time" or "incarceration", and how much should be paid (and to whom) for the crimes where you said "restitution"? The rest where you did not provide a punishment that requires an amount of punishment, I will respond to below the box which contains the items you need to clarify:
[QUOTE]
That's what the "QUOTE=JUDGERIGHTLY;####" means. By leaving your response to my post within the "QUOTE" tags, you are INHERENTLY attributing words to me that I did not say.
That is called BEARING FALSE WITNESS.
It's a good thing that I'm not writing a book, and that this is a forum, otherwise you might have a point.
There are BBCode tags made available to use for a reason, Cabinet. You should use them.
Or even just take the list out of the QUOTE tags, and simply respond to it without attributing to me. That's acceptable on this forum, as far as I'm aware...
NOTE:
This passage is not talking about rape.
It's talking about a form of adultery.
A woman who is engaged to be married is considered to be that man's wife, because it should be expected that if a woman gets engaged to a man, it would be almost guaranteed that he would marry her.
The only difference between being engaged and being married is that the marriage hasn't been formalized yet, and that the two have not yet become one flesh.
With that in mind, also consider this:
It was expected (unfortunately, this isn't true today) that if a woman (especially if she was engaged to be married) (if she had any honor) was being propositioned to by a man (in other words, he was trying to seduce her), she would cry out so that everyone around her would know that this man was trying to seduce her, and he would at the very least, be shamed.
Considering both of the above, the meaning of the verse becomes clear:
If a woman who is engaged to be married doesn't cry out, but instead goes along with a man, and he lies with her, they are guilty of adultery, and should both be put to death, as the law says, because the man violated his neighbor's wife (she was engaged to the man), and she was complicit (she did not cry out in the town where everyone would have heard her)
Fair enough. I concede that the law does not specify that the man should be brought along with the woman.
All we have as evidence to that is the Pharisees' claim that she was caught in the very act, yet their testimony is cast into doubt because of what scripture says, that they were trying to trick Jesus.
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. - John 8:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John8:6&version=NKJV
You said:
Which has nothing to do with "willing to help others in need."
Man is basically evil. Just look at America with its social programs. People will gladly pass laws that take from their neighbors just so that their personal needs can be met.
Define "completed" please.
The New Covenant was for Israel, the same nation that the Old Covenant was made to.
Not only has the New Covenant been put on hold, but it also only applied to the Jews, and could only be accessed by people who entered the covenant of circumcision (in other words, only by those who became a Jew). One cannot currently enter into the New Covenant.
No argument there, but what does that have to do with punishing criminals?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
You should read the parable of the barren fig tree, and then compare it to what happened between Acts 1:1 and Acts 9:1. And then read Galatians 2:7-9.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — - Hebrews 8:8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews8:8&version=NKJV
You need to pay attention to what Scripture ACTUALLY says.
And yet, aside from a very small number of trips made by only a handful of the Twelve, not one of them obeyed that command. They all stayed within Jerusalem and the surrounding area.
Good scripture. But it has nothing to do with the New Covenant.
The New Covenant makes the distinction between Jew and Gentile. On the other hand, in the Body of Christ, there is NO distinction.
Care to try again?
Next time, just remove the "QUOTE" tags from around the portion of my post you are quoting and add your "parenthetical".
That way I don't have to struggle with trying to copy and paste text from your post in an app on a mobile device.
Did you even bother to check to see what the Bible says about such crimes?
Is murder just a sin? or is it a crime also?
What's that supposed to mean? That you can't make laws against crimes?
Making something illegal does NOTHING to prevent crime.
We're not talking about things that are only sins.
We're talking about things that are both sin AND crime.
Jesus didn't "set" any standard during his earthly ministry.
He only corrected what people believed. If you compare what He said to what the law in the Old Testament, you'll find that they match.
And yet, we're not talking about things that are just sin here, we're talking about CRIME. Lust is not a crime, but it leads to death. Adultery stems from lust, which makes it a sin, but in addition to being a sin, it is also a crime, because it's acting out one's lust.
You keep trying to make this discussion only about the sin aspect of crimes, while trying to steer the conversation away from how the crimes should be punished by the government.
Which deals with sins, and not how crimes should be dealt with.
Good thing that your agreement with something is not necessary for it to be correct.
The Gospel INCLUDES the law, Cab. The law is the tool a Christian uses to bring the lost to Christ!
Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith,from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk,desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. - 1 Timothy 1:5-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Timothy1:5-11&version=NKJV
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator.Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. - Galatians 3:19-25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians3:19-25&version=NKJV
No, we don't. They are already condemned! When we tell someone who has committed a capital crime that they deserve to be put to death, we are telling them what their just punishment should be.
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. - John 3:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John3:18-19&version=NKJV
Good for you.
Have you ever tried loving them? And by love I don't mean telling them "God loves you." By love I mean telling them that what they're doing is destroying not only them but those around them.
And do you walk away or do you persist?
If that were true, then it should be impossible to reach people through condemning them. See below (Terry's Call).
Question: What do you tell a hoarder? Do you tell them that you love them and that what they're doing is ok? OR do you tell them that what they're doing is destroying their life, and that if they don't stop, they're going to die because of the conditions they're living in?
It's arrogant to warn people of their impending doom?
“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. - John 3:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John3:18-19&version=NKJV
None, they are all condemned already. I just pointed the fact out to them.
You should listen to "Terry's Call." A homo called into BEL and condemned Bob for being against homosexuality and claimed to be a "gay Christian". You know what happened next? Bob called him a pervert.
https://kgov.com/terrys-call
Terry got saved that day, and, while unfortunately it was already too late for him to be treated (Terry had AIDS from his perverted lifestyle), Denver Bible Church bought him a bus ticket to come live out in Denver, but Terry died on the way there in Kansas City.
Terry is now in heaven, why? Because someone condemned him for being a homo.
It does more harm than good to say that murder is wrong and should be punished?
It does more harm than good to condemn adultery because not only does it destroy those who do it, but also has devastating effects on the family members of those involved?
It does more harm than good to condemn crime?
You are a fool, Cabinet.
It does more harm than good to NOT condemn crimes that lead to death.
Your argument seems to be "since my opponents don't mention forgiveness when advocating the death penalty for certain crimes, therefore they must not think that criminals should be forgiven."
That's called an argument from silence, and it is also incorrect on two things.
1) We advocate the death penalty, because we want criminals to be deterred from committing the crime in the first place.
2) We do not advocate that criminals should be forgiven. We advocate that criminals should only be forgiven IF THEY REPENT. And even then, if they have committed a capital crime, we advocate that they should STILL be put to death.
Our focus is not forgiveness, nor is it the topic of the thread, no matter how much you would like it to be.
Our focus is appropriate punishment for crimes.
You keep leaving out the most important part.
Someone has to repent before they can justly be forgiven.
That is the intent behind the death penalty...
Which does not contradict our position. So what's your point?
What if they don't repent, do you still advocate for forgiving them?
But you won't consider God's required punishments for criminals. Instead you'll go to man-made "civil criminal codes" to find punishments for crimes.
:think:
Even if the criminal doesn't repent?
There was a study done almost two thousand years ago on how many people, when confronted with their mortality, repented and turned to God.
50% of them did not repent, and the other 50% did.
How many people truly get saved in prisons today through prison ministries? Not many, right? In fact, many of the prisoners (especially those who are in prison for lesser crimes, would probably call themselves Christians.
I would say that prison ministries would get less than 33% of the ones they witness to saved (no, that's not an official number, but I can't seem to find any statistics on the matter).
So which is better at showing people that they need God? Prison ministries, or the death penalty?
50% or less than 33%?
I'm pretty sure Ray Comfort does it just fine. Just watch some of his videos on YT.
You tell them that there's a way out of eternal punishment, that if they accept Christ, even though they will die for their crime, they will be forgiven, and will be given eternal life. You present that as the alternative to being punished for all eternity for rejecting the God of righteousness.
Do you advocate that the judge should forgive criminals from their crimes?
What about criminals that don't repent?
What is that supposed to mean?
Why? God says that murderers, adulterers, homosexuals, sodomites, those who commit bestiality, kidnappers, should all be put to death. What authority do you have to say they should not?
Because you say so?
The law (which, by the way, includes the punishments for breaking it) is a tutor that leads one to Christ. When you pervert the law, changing what it says, and saying that the punishments shouldn't be as harsh, you remove the law's purpose of bringing people to Christ.
Which does not go against our position.
Which goes against Scripture:
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. - Proverbs 9:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs9:10&version=NKJV
Advocating the death penalty for crimes that are worthy of death teaches the people that there is eternal death for those who reject God.
We look at it from GOD's perspective.
He says that those who commit crimes worthy of death should be put to death, those who commit crimes worthy of corporal punishment should be corporally punished, and those who commit crimes worthy of restitution should pay restitution.
You may uphold law, but you certainly don't uphold justice. Justice would be to punish criminals with the punishments given by God.
Where in the Bible does it say that God repealed the death penalty for murder? Where in the Bible does it say God repealed the death penalty for homosexuality? Where in the Bible does it say God repealed the death penalty for bestiality? For adultery? Where did he repeal the punishments for other crimes, such as theft, assault, negligence?
Then if, as you claim, you know our position, could you put our position, that you claim to know, into your own words?
--------
Ok, now for your answer to my request for appropriate punishments for crimes. Before I get into this, could you please tell me how long the prison sentences should be for the crimes where you said "Jail time" or "incarceration", and how much should be paid (and to whom) for the crimes where you said "restitution"? The rest where you did not provide a punishment that requires an amount of punishment, I will respond to below the box which contains the items you need to clarify:
Spoiler
Last edited:
Do you believe that Jesus fulfilled the Law? You did n't quote the whole passage so you twist the meaning to fit what you want to see. The whole passage says:
[h=3]Matthew 5: The Fulfillment of the Law[/h]17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Did Jesus's death on the cross and resurrection fulfill the law?
It means that I do not find leaglists to be inspired teachers.
Well, actually no, that is not a true statement. I have several times that a well ordered society requires a justice system to keep itself well ordered. Punishment needs to match the crime. The Topic is: Do young children deserve to executed? My answer is no, they do not. Because Jesus fulfilled the law so there is no biblical mandate under the New Covenant to kill a child. Or anybody really. That leaves the death penalty up to human law to determine when and how it should be applied.
No, my objection is based on faith. God told me to go make believers of all nations, He did not command me to go find everybody who is guilty of a crime and punish them.
I firmly believe that Jesus said that.
That's what it says. It also says: "I have not come to abolish the law."
That puts to rest your stupid assertion that John 8 means the law is no longer in effect.
Yes.
Note, it also did not abolish the law.
"Fulfilled" does not mean "abolished."
Simple comprehension seems to be well beyond you.
:yawn:
Your squeamishness is irrelevant. You do think criminals should be punished. Don't you believe that Jesus "fulfilled" the law?
Hypocrite.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I disagree with your analysis. I believe that when somebody is not condemned by God they are forgiven by God. I believe that when the Law was fulfilled its power over us was abolished. I believe that when you go around telling people that God wants them dead because of the Old Covenant laws you completely undermine what Jesus actually came to do. Jesus dies for the forgiveness of all sins. When we die, we will not be judged for our sins, we will be judged for what we did with Jesus. Did we accept Him or did we reject Him. When you go around telling people God wants them dead you reject Jesus's Gospel of hope and forgiveness in favor of vengeance. That is not a measure I want to be judged by.
But you want criminals punished.
So much for "forgiveness."
Your position is stupid beyond belief.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Right Divider
Body part
No, there was much more to come from the law AND THE PROPHETS.
I notice that your "Matthew 5: The Fulfillment of the Law" ignores THE PROPHETS completely.
Right Divider
Body part
No, you are NOT one of the TWELVE (actually eleven at the time)..
I am so sorry you lack the ability to understand the difference. You can be forgiven but still bear the consequences of your actions. The question we must answer is whether a child could ever be actually guilty of a capitol crime. The next, and more important, question we must ask is whether are actions bring glory to God. Given what Christ did for us, there is no possible way I could say that killing a child brings any glory to God at all.