No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[JudgeRightly]

. . . If you're going to judge people or matters then be careful as to how you're doing it lest you be a hypocrite. . . .

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Close enough. Basically, don't judge someone if you're guilty of the same sin, which would make you a hypocrite.

Ok, Now that we're on the same page...

Were the scribes and Pharisees, attempting to have the woman killed? or was their main goal to trap Jesus with the Law?

 

[ok doser]

... I'm not dodging anything.

sure you are

I reckon that Jesus would have done the same with any self righteous mob and any woman caught in the same at any time.

you can "reckon" whatever you like, i suppose :idunno:

Doing away with bludgeoning people to death isn't the same as doing away with law.

yes, it is

specifically, Leviticus 20:10

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

...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

Wow, that has to be the most convoluted way of stretching Jesus's actual words into something altogether different I've ever seen. Tell me, how many of those 613 laws were you aware of before googling it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

sure you are



you can "reckon" whatever you like, i suppose :idunno:



yes, it is

specifically, Leviticus 20:10

Well, no, it isn't. You're free to believe that Jesus would sanction the stoning to death of women as in the passage as you will under different circumstances, it's hardly a surprise unfortunately.

 

[ok doser]

Wow, that has to be the most convoluted way of stretching Jesus's actual words ....

rather, i'm reading them in the context in which they were spoken

 

[ok doser]

Well, no, it isn't.

yes artie, it is - it's a direct rewriting of Leviticus 20:10, the way you're reading it

You're free to believe that Jesus would sanction...

... the application of the Law, as written in the hebrew scriptures - a Law with aspects that seem brutal and archaic today to some who think themselves "enlightened" or "progressive" - aka "nicer than God"

 

[Arthur Brain]

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Close enough. Basically, don't judge someone if you're guilty of the same sin, which would make you a hypocrite.

Ok, Now that we're on the same page...

Were the scribes and Pharisees, attempting to have the woman killed? or was their main goal to trap Jesus with the Law?

Their main goal was to trap although they were shoddy in the task if they were experts and they were effectively booted into touch in so much more of a manner than if Jesus simply pointed out their ineptitude. This self righteous mob were convicted by their conscience to leave where it was only the woman and Jesus left. Even if there were a few stragglers who remained behind do you think that Jesus would have still not condemned the woman?

 

[Arthur Brain]

rather, i'm reading them in the context in which they were spoken

No, you're not. You're not reading the verse for what it clearly states, adding and applying your own interpretation in order to fit in with your own preferred take on events. Nobody else is obliged to follow suit or take it remotely seriously.

 

[Arthur Brain]

yes artie, it is - it's a direct rewriting of Leviticus 20:10, the way you're reading it




... the application of the Law, as written in the hebrew scriptures - a Law with aspects that seem brutal and archaic today

Probably because they're not meant to be applied today and the majority of Christendom understands that. It only seems to be the present day equivalent of the legalists of yesteryear who can't. Thankfully, a minority.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Their main goal was to trap although they were shoddy in the task if they were experts and they were effectively booted into touch in so much more of a manner than if Jesus simply pointed out their ineptitude. This self righteous mob were convicted by their conscience to leave where it was only the woman and Jesus left.

Now, put the two together.

What happens when one tries to bring the law against someone while not keeping the law himself? What does that make him?

Even if there were a few stragglers who remained behind do you think that Jesus would have still not condemned the woman?

I have no idea, because that's not what happened. Let's not worry too much about the "what if" and instead let's focus on the "what is".

 

[ok doser]

Probably because they're not meant to be applied today ....

because adultery doesn't exist today?
because adultery, while it does exist, isn't a big deal anymore?
because adultery, while it does exist and it is a big deal, is something that modern society winks at?

 

[ok doser]

rather, i'm reading them in the context in which they were spoken

No, you're not.

yes artie, i am - Jesus was speaking to a specific audience in a specific situation

here, let's see if you've been paying attention.

Who was Jesus speaking to when He said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"?

Was it

A. the woman
B. the scribes and pharisees
c. all the people
d. all of the above

 

[Arthur Brain]

Now, put the two together.

What happens when one tries to bring the law against someone while not keeping the law himself? What does that make him?

In the case of people who were supposed experts on the law? None too bright. However, they weren't convicted to leave the scene because of their folly but rather because they were guilty of sin. If this passage were solely about law then why the need for Jesus to say the words He did?

I have no idea, because that's not what happened. Let's not worry too much about the "what if" and instead let's focus on the "what is".

It's pretty obvious and I think you know that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

yes artie, i am - Jesus was speaking to a specific audience in a specific situation

here, let's see if you've been paying attention.

Who was Jesus speaking to when He said: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"?

Was it

A. the woman
B. the scribes and pharisees
c. all the people
d. all of the above

All of the people who brought the woman forward. Actually, possibly everybody there besides the woman as she was hardly likely to bludgeon herself to death.

I'm not interested in your adding to what is already clearly stated.

 

[Arthur Brain]

because adultery doesn't exist today?
because adultery, while it does exist, isn't a big deal anymore?
because adultery, while it does exist and it is a big deal, is something that modern society winks at?

No, no and no. We've gotten beyond hurling rocks at people in the present age for the most part though, thankfully.

 

[ok doser]

Now, put the two together.

What happens when one tries to bring the law against someone while not keeping the law himself? What does that make him?

artie put the two together and came up with three :sigh:

 

[ok doser]

All of the people who brought the woman forward.

and who were those people who brought the woman forward?

Actually, possibly everybody there

nope

 

[Arthur Brain]

and who were those people who brought the woman forward?




nope

Her accusers and "nope" in turn.

Who was left at the end of that passage besides Jesus and the woman?

 

[ok doser]

No, no and no. We've gotten beyond hurling rocks at people in the present age for the most part though, thankfully.

ok, so you admit that adultery still exists and that it's still a big thing

and you appear to reveal that your primary issue is with the method of punishment

ok - how should adultery be punished?

 

[Arthur Brain]

artie put the two together and came up with three :sigh:

Maths is not your strong point...