No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[Right Divider]

There were already witnesses to the event.

None were found.

They were trying to wrangle a charge against Jesus but instead were taught their own lesson, that none of them were sinless.

That was not news.

Where it comes to OT law then Jesus brought about change didn't He?

No, He did not.

Why have the NT if everything was supposed to carry on as old?

The new testament does not eliminate the law.

Mat 5:17-18 KJV Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.​

ALL is not fulfilled until the very END.

That doesn't mean that the law is discarded either.

The first sensible thing that you've said.

I wouldn't say it was "wild" exactly but my speculation is that Jesus may have written a list on the ground of behaviours that everyone in the crowd would at least have been guilty of some; lying, coveting, greed, lust etc. Not one person in the crowd felt confident enough to lay claim to be without sin and pick up a stone did they?

Nope... doesn't help your argument that Jesus was not following the law. He was.

 

[ok doser]

Sure, He will. But in the meantime, He expects governments to punish criminals appropriately.

but there are those who believe they can do it better than God, that God got it wrong

 

[Arthur Brain]

criminally tragic

and so we have no good outcome for those who are wrongfully convicted

so let's drop from the conversation any pretense that "compensation" has any validity

Why "criminally tragic"? Wrongful convictions don't necessarily involve any criminality. In any system there are going to be mistakes.

There's no good outcome for any person wrongfully convicted who has no right of appeal and carted off to a swift execution.

There is for those who are exonerated down the line, obviously sooner rather than later and reunited with their loved ones and family. Under your proposals there'd be no chance for anyone convicted to have such.

 

[Arthur Brain]

None were found.

Um, how do you know there weren't witnesses to her adultery in the crowd? Just because there was nobody left but Jesus and the woman doesn't mean there weren't to start with.

That was not news.

Perhaps not but it's bemusing that some people can think this passage is solely about Jesus avoiding a legal trap.

No, He did not.

Really? What about an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth?

The new testament does not eliminate the law.

Mat 5:17-18 KJV Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.​

Nobody is saying it did.

The first sensible thing that you've said.

Not into the kindergarten insults and you shouldn't be either really.

Nope... doesn't help your argument that Jesus was not following the law. He was.

Nope to what? I could well be wrong about what Jesus was writing on the ground but it's a reasonable speculation and you don't know one way or the other either. If you think that Jesus would have allowed the bludgeoning of a woman to death if it was lawful then it's bewildering.

 

[Right Divider]

Um, how do you know there weren't witnesses to her adultery in the crowd? Just because there was nobody left but Jesus and the woman doesn't mean there weren't to start with.

That's the POINT of that law... It matters NOT how many witnesses there are if nobody will come forward when they are needed.

Perhaps not but it's bemusing that some people can think this passage is solely about Jesus avoiding a legal trap.

Then shame on those people.

Really? What about an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth?

Where did Jesus say that this was invalid?

Nobody is saying it did.

And yet it appears that you don't think that Jesus was applying it.

Not into the kindergarten insults and you shouldn't be either really.

You are hyper-sensitive, as usual.

Nope to what? I could well be wrong about what Jesus was writing on the ground but it's a reasonable speculation and you don't know one way or the other either. If you think that Jesus would have allowed the bludgeoning of a woman to death if it was lawful then it's bewildering.

That you think that Jesus would not follow His own law is bewildering.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, I am a parent, have eight grandchildren, and two great grandchildren.

Have you ever put your children (or grandchildren) in timeout?

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's the POINT of that law... It matters NOT how many witnesses there are if nobody will come forward when they are needed.

They came forward to start with. Jesus convicted them all to leave. How did that happen again? Oh, He said that anyone without sin could cast the first stone. The only people who could have remained after that would have been liars...

Then shame on those people.

If you don't fit into that category then you're certainly near it.

Where did Jesus say that this was invalid?

He gave a new teaching regarding it.

And yet it appears that you don't think that Jesus was applying it.

What exactly is "The Law"? Things given in OT times don't dismantle law itself if aspects change. One example being that if a person doesn't work then nor shall they eat. In communal times people would have relied on each other in order to survive and if someone refused to work then it stands to reason that food would be withheld from such a person. People still try to use that verse to say that anyone out of work in the present should be denied the same regardless.

You are hyper-sensitive, as usual.

Then you don't know me at all. I have been called all sorts of things in life and on forums and I've got a thick skin. That was just a nudge to keep things civil and if you can't then hey, carry on if you must.

That you think that Jesus would not follow His own law is bewildering.

The one person that would have been qualified to condemn the woman was Jesus. He didn't and if you think He would have let a mob bludgeon to death a woman and be within the law then you've missed the point.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The one person that would have been qualified to condemn the woman was Jesus. He didn't and if you think He would have let a mob bludgeon to death a woman and be within the law then you've missed the point.

The one person who was qualified to condemn King David for his sin of adultery was God.

Did God forgive David, and if so, did He have to repeal the law against adultery to do so?

Or could it be that Jesus, being God, has the authority to forgive someone of their sin and crime, and let them go free, if He so chooses, WITHOUT repealing ANY LAW?

 

[Arthur Brain]

The one person who was qualified to condemn King David for his sin of adultery was God.

Did God forgive David, and if so, did He have to repeal the law against adultery to do so?

Or could it be that Jesus, being God, has the authority to forgive someone of their sin and crime, and let them go free, if He so chooses, WITHOUT repealing ANY LAW?

So, Jesus could choose to forgive a person of a capital crime and that's it? There's no more lesson here? Tell me JR, do you think it would have made a difference no matter which woman was brought to Jesus that day, or any other day? Do you think His words would have changed at all? That being that anyone without sin would be entitled to cast the first stone? You think the results would have been any different?

 

[Right Divider]

They came forward to start with.

Yes, that is obvious. Thanks for pointing it out.

Jesus convicted them all to leave. How did that happen again? Oh, He said that anyone without sin could cast the first stone. The only people who could have remained after that would have been liars...

So only sinless people can execute the law?

If you don't fit into that category then you're certainly near it.

Childish false accusations... I thought you wanted us to all act grown-up.

He gave a new teaching regarding it.

Documentation?

I many cases, Jesus gave a more strict understanding of the law.

What exactly is "The Law"? Things given in OT times don't dismantle law itself if aspects change. One example being that if a person doesn't work then nor shall they eat.

Where is that in the law?

In communal times people would have relied on each other in order to survive and if someone refused to work then it stands to reason that food would be withheld from such a person. People still try to use that verse to say that anyone out of work in the present should be denied the same regardless.

You're off on rabbit trails now....

Then you don't know me at all. I have been called all sorts of things in life and on forums and I've got a thick skin. That was just a nudge to keep things civil and if you can't then hey, carry on if you must.

I've been here quite a while and have seen your hyper-sensitivity often enough.

The one person that would have been qualified to condemn the woman was Jesus. He didn't and if you think He would have let a mob bludgeon to death a woman and be within the law then you've missed the point.

Jesus was following the law. The law required TWO or THREE witnesses to COME FORWARD to attest to the violation of the law. There was NOBODY that came forward to attest as a witness. No witnesses; case dismissed.

 

[Town Heretic]

So, Jesus could choose to forgive a person of a capital crime and that's it? There's no more lesson here?

Tell me JR, do you think it would have made a difference no matter which woman was brought to Jesus that day, or any other day? Do you think His words would have changed at all? That being that anyone without sin would be entitled to cast the first stone? You think the results would have been any different?

Right. Neither God nor the good can be capricious, or its less than absolute and he is less than good. He can absolutely satisfy justice in mercy/sacrifice, but a willy-nilly application outside of that is something else and contrary to his own nature.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, that is obvious. Thanks for pointing it out.

You're welcome.

So only sinless people can execute the law?

Well it was only sinless people who were given the go ahead to throw stones at the woman. Why was that?

Childish false accusations... I thought you wanted us to all act grown-up.

More like a sensitive reaction...

Documentation?

I many cases, Jesus gave a more strict understanding of the law.

You don't know what Jesus said in regards to an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth? You surprise me. You can look it up easily enough.

Where is that in the law?

Are you arguing that it wasn't part of "the law"?

You're off on rabbit trails now....

It was an example in relation as to how instructions given for ancient times don't automatically apply to the present.

I've been here quite a while and have seen your hyper-sensitivity often enough.

Well, no you haven't and anyone who knows me would find you pretty funny at this point. Still, carry on if you want.

Jesus was following the law. The law required TWO or THREE witnesses to COME FORWARD to attest to the violation of the law. There was NOBODY that came forward to attest as a witness. No witnesses; case dismissed.

Jesus pretty much made it impossible for there to be any witnesses remaining. I'll ask you the same question I did JR. Do you think Jesus would have had any different words to say on any given day with any woman caught and with any given mob?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, Jesus could choose to forgive a person of a capital crime and that's it?

Sure He could. Because sin is against GOD.

There's no more lesson here?

Sure there is. But could you answer my proffer, first?

Did God have to repeal the law against adultery to forgive David for his adultery? and does God have to repeal any law for Him to be able to forgive someone of that sin?

Tell me JR, do you think it would have made a difference no matter which woman was brought to Jesus that day, or any other day? Do you think His words would have changed at all? That being that anyone without sin would be entitled to cast the first stone? You think the results would have been any different?

Red herring. Please answer my question.

Did God have to repeal the law against adultery to forgive David for committing adultery? and does God have to repeal any law for Him to be able to forgive someone of that sin?

 

[ok doser]

Why "criminally tragic"?

in the case of the conviction of an innocent man for a capital crime, the prosecutor and the judge should be executed for bearing false witness

Deuteronomy 19:16

 

[ok doser]

There is (a good outcome)for those who are exonerated down the line....

oh?

tell me, how do you give back to someone years of their life?

how do you erase all the pain and anguish of years of false imprisonment?

you're trying to pretend that an unjust period of imprisonment and torture with little hope of reversal is better than a swift execution

i'm not buying it

 

[ok doser]

... If you think that Jesus would have allowed the bludgeoning of a woman to death if it was lawful then it's bewildering.

did He stop the crucifixion of the thieves hanging alongside Him?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure He could. Because sin is against GOD.



Sure there is. But could you answer my proffer, first?

Did God have to repeal the law against adultery to forgive David for his adultery? and does God have to repeal any law for Him to be able to forgive someone of that sin?



Red herring. Please answer my question.

Did God have to repeal the law against adultery to forgive David for committing adultery? and does God have to repeal any law for Him to be able to forgive someone of that sin?

There's no "red herring" going on here. If adultery was a capital crime in ancient times then the case of the adulterous woman would seem to kick that into touch. Otherwise, there's no consistency and while one woman is spared that through Jesus, then another is bludgeoned to death? You have your answer in my last unless you think that on another day Jesus would have acted differently? David was a king who would hardly have been subject to criminal proceedings.

 

[Arthur Brain]

oh?

tell me, how do you give back to someone years of their life?

how do you erase all the pain and anguish of years of false imprisonment?

you're trying to pretend that an unjust period of imprisonment and torture with little hope of reversal is better than a swift execution

i'm not buying it

Then tell that to those who have been released from prison and reunited with their families and see how many would tell you that they'd have preferred to have been swiftly executed.

 

[Arthur Brain]

did He stop the crucifixion of the thieves hanging alongside Him?

No, nor did He have anything to do with their conviction. He also didn't stop many others so what your point here is anyone's guess.

 

[ok doser]

... anyone without sin would be entitled to cast the first stone...

and so, what Jesus really meant was, since no one is without sin, no one is qualified to enact the punishments that the Law demands, and thus, all sinful behavior/crime is to be forgiven

So only sinless people can execute the law?

told you