No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[Arthur Brain]

nope, that's not there either

you're listing sins that would not have been recognized as such by the pharisees and scribes of first century palestine

you're listing catholic sins (and by extension protestant)

So? Was Lust, greed, coveting, etc not recognised as "sin" as well? Doesn't alter the point.

 

[Arthur Brain]

i interpret it as "one specific sin"

you interpret it as "any sin, ever" which opens a whole can of worms that you'd rather avoid

for example:

There's no need for interpretation whatsoever. It's clear, right there in black and white. It says "without sin", not "without a certain sin". You don't think Jesus would have stipulated that if that's what He meant?

You're the one trying to interpret a verse that is clear as it is.

:AMR:

 

[ok doser]

So? Was Lust, greed, coveting, etc not recognised as "sin" as well? Doesn't alter the point.

dude - i gave you the link - you can go search as easily as I

 

[ok doser]

There's no need for interpretation whatsoever.

good

then you agree with me

 

[Arthur Brain]

good

then you agree with me

Hardly, you're adding something to the verse that isn't there.

 

[Arthur Brain]

dude - i gave you the link - you can go search as easily as I

Considering it doesn't alter anything then thanks but pass...

 

[ok doser]

It says "without sin", not "without a certain sin".

now you're talking about the catholic concept of original sin

I'm not sure that the scribes and pharisees of first century palestine held that belief

[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION]?
[MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION]?

how about you [MENTION=5868]chair[/MENTION]?

 

[ok doser]

Hardly, you're adding something to the verse that isn't there.

rather, you're taking it as a universal while i see it as a specific


and understandably, dodging this:

the way you are interpreting the verse, artie, would negate the Law by imposing requirements on its enforcement that would be impossible to meet

did Jesus come to negate the Law by making it unenforceable?

 

[Arthur Brain]

now you're talking about the catholic concept of original sin

I'm not sure that the scribes and pharisees of first century palestine held that belief
[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION]?
[MENTION=15338]Right Divider[/MENTION]?

how about you [MENTION=5868]chair[/MENTION]?

Well, no. I'm simply reading the verse for what it says whereas you're trying to add something that isn't there. If Jesus meant to say "He who is without a sin or a certain sin" then that's not as recorded in any translation that I'm aware of.

It says what it says and this is getting more and more reaching on your part.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, no. I'm simply reading the verse for what it says whereas you're trying to add something that isn't there. If Jesus meant to say "He who is without a sin or a certain sin" then that's not as recorded in any translation that I'm aware of.

It says what it says and this is getting more and more reaching on your part.

Arty, what did Jesus teach in Matthew 7:1-5?

Do you remember? Do you know?

 

[Arthur Brain]

rather, you're taking it as a universal while i see it as a specific


and understandably, dodging this:

I'm taking it simply for what it says and I'm not dodging anything. I reckon that Jesus would have done the same with any self righteous mob and any woman caught in the same at any time. Doing away with bludgeoning people to death isn't the same as doing away with law.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arty, what did Jesus teach in Matthew 7:1-5?

Do you remember? Do you know?

Yes, what's your point? It fits right in with the first part of your username although you'll have to explain the relevance.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, what's your point? It fits right in with the first part of your username although you'll have to explain the relevance.

You didn't answer this:

what did Jesus teach in Matthew 7:1-5?

What did He teach in that passage?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, what's your point? It fits right in with the first part of your username although you'll have to explain the relevance.

Oh, and leave the personal jabs out of your arguments please.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You didn't answer this:



What did He teach in that passage?

Um, it's pretty clear isn't it? It's not like it needs interpreting? What is your point?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh, and leave the personal jabs out of your arguments please.

Ah, fair enough. Bad show on my part...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Um, it's pretty clear isn't it?

If it were clear, you wouldn't be so evasive in answering the question.

It's not like it needs interpreting? What is your point?

Arty, What did Jesus teach in Matthew 7:1-5? Please answer the question.

 

[ok doser]

Well, no. I'm simply reading the verse for what it says...

but not in the context of those to whom He was speaking - the scribes and pharisees would not have recognized themselves as being sinful in general (the catholic concept of original sin) - they believed that they led sinless lives by their adherence to the Law, by their meticulous following of every single one of those 613 laws which they would have known by heart, by their formulaic sacrifices on the altar

 

[ok doser]

Well, no. I'm simply reading the verse for what it says ....

...through 20th century eyes, informed by 1700 years of catholic/protestant dogma

you're reading it in a way that no first century jew would have

 

[Arthur Brain]

If it were clear, you wouldn't be so evasive in answering the question.



Arty, What did Jesus teach in Matthew 7:1-5? Please answer the question.

What isn't clear about it? If you're going to judge people or matters then be careful as to how you're doing it lest you be a hypocrite. Well, guess what, we're all the latter to some degree and you do not always "judge rightly" yourself. So, what was the point of this in relation to the topic?