If you knew the law, you'd know why the prosecution was a bunch of hypocrites.
toldailytopic: Is the death penalty unchristian?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
You asked why Jesus didn't state what was wrong with what they were doing right out - i responded because He always spoke in parables -
Psalm 78:2 prophesied that Jesus would speak in parables as Jesus explained in Matthew 13:35. Jesus also quoted from Isaiah 6:9-10 in Matthew 13:14-15
He also responded to them (the Pharisees) in a way they perfectly understood when He wrote in the sand while they were trying to trap Him. They got it because they knew the OT scriptures.
Jeremiah 17:13
O Lord, the hope of Israel,
All who forsake You shall be ashamed.
“Those who depart from Me
Shall be written in the earth,
Because they have forsaken the Lord,
The fountain of living waters.”
Penalty for adultery in the law:
Deuteronomy 22:22
“If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel.
The man was not brought before Christ, only the woman even though they stated that they were caught in the act, so being the hypocrites that they were, they were not following the law themselves.
Roman law at the time on adultery:
Adultery was also a crime in Roman law -
If no death penalty was carried out and charges for adultery were brought, both the married woman and her lover were subject to criminal penalties
The law of God on Adultery and the laws on adultery of Roman rule were not upheld as only the woman was brought.
OT civilization and the times and life of its peoples were necessarily desensitized to any number of things that horrify modern Western culture.
You're still wrong on this. Crimes of passion have nothing to do with premeditation or any rational point. No alteration of law or practice could impact them. No goal post moving needed. Now if you made the implements of murder harder to come by or less effective (it's harder to kill someone with a hammer than it is from a safe distance with a gun) you might impact it, but only if you're willing to trade your right to defend yourself and bear arms, which our culture isn't. Me either, comes to it.
Eh, most Western countries have something like it on tap, but I agree they aren't ultimately competition for us.Not much competition.lain:
The first part of that isn't saying much necessarily. If I process one hundred thousand claims and one is flawed per each of those hundred thousand that's regularly, but still evidence of a good system. Prisons do, in fact, aim to rehabilitate the felon and there are numerous programs to that end. And while your concern is appreciated, we are the Republic of record and our compact remains a model of social stability.
You haven't established that's what's being done or that God meant to apply to the Gentile what he applied to the pre-resurrection Jew.
I do. A crime of passion isn't one where the penalty is considered. It isn't premeditated. That's literally what is meant by the term. So moving goal posts just doesn't rationally impact it. Harder, faster ect. only matters if it's considered.
No. If we manage to make mistakes with the protections in place reducing those and speeding up the process can't make for a lessening of error. It's not logical to assume or assert the contrary.
Rather it's a highly qualified and singular yes. Now unless you believe those circumstances will repeat it becomes a no as pertains to the rule.
zippy2006
New member
| Catechism, 2267: Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." |
...more
How is it clear He would have saved her anyway?
There is absolutely nothing in the entire story to point to the idea that if the law had actually been followed that Jesus would have been opposed to it being carried out.
And the thief on the cross is a completely different subject. And speaking of the thief [who was actually more than a thief] he admitted that he was getting what he deserved, and Jesus did not correct him on that. Jesus did not save him from physical death, but because of his humility and accepting Jesus for who He was, Jesus offered him salvation on the other side of this life. So your argument defeats itself anyway.
You are such a fool.
The law stated that both the man and the woman were to be put to death together, and it also stated that if the people could not decide among themselves on the guilt of the parties they were to take them to a place chosen by God, and before a priest and a judge. It also stated that there must be two or three witnesses, no less than two, and none of these things were followed. Now some may want to argue the witness issue, but if you read the story you'll see that when witnesses were asked for there were none.
What's easy to see is that you don't know the word of God.
Because He has more wisdom than you.
And how do you know He didn't convey that message? Can you tell me what He wrote in the sand?
As I asked, how do you know He didn't?
Of course those who are guilty should not be hypocrites. This is equal with His words in Matthew 7:1-5.
But the Bible also tells us that those who are His are without sin, for He has made cleansed us from all unrighteousness.
And who said anything about final judgment? And what is wrong with your brain that you think grace means we don't suffer the consequences of our actions in the here and now? If I commit murder should I not be punished by the law because I'm forgiven by God? Paul certainly didn't seem to think so.
And in the end this has nothing to do with sin, and everything to do with crime.
The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
-Leviticus 20:10
So, where was the man?
If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones. Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
-Deuteronomy 17:2-7
When Jesus asked for witnesses there were none.
If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the Lord chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you. Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.
-Deuteronomy 17:8-13
Were they at a place chosen by God? Where were the Levite priest and the judge? Jesus was neither of these.
Now, what do you think Jesus wrote in the sand? Maybe it was these verses?
Not to mention Deuteronomy 17:2-13.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
Angel and lighthouse Ok thanks for taking the time to explain your position;
If understand correct your position is based on three arguments;
I will deal with them one at a time;
I would agree this situation was a corruption of the law as it was written as you say both parties should have been accused equally, but I do not see how the an imperfect application of the law either makes the woman innocent or the sentence null and void.
You have both stated this is true (in bold in one case), but have nowhere given scriptures that support this premise. If your argument is to hold up this would be key.
I cannot see anything in the scripture to support the 2nd point at all, vs 3 says caught in adultery, nowhere does it say she was caught by a single witnesses, nowhere do I see Jesus make a call for witnesses which are not answered which lighthouse referred, with the positive statement of caught and no other evidence I have to go with the assumption the required amount of witnesses were present.
The third point that Jesus wasn’t qualified to make a judgement, because he wasn’t a judge, levite or priest. Come on there is no one in creation more qualified to make judgement. He will judge the living and the dead. He is also out great high priest, and passes that test hands down. I’d be ashamed to make the argument you just made.
The arguments from what he wrote on the ground must be seen as irrelevant because if they were relevant to the meaning of the story I am sure the gospel writer would have told us what we wrote in the ground. We definitely can’t dogmatic about what was written or drawn.
I find none of your three arguments compelling in any way.
In light of that I still understand the scripture in the way that she was guilty or a crime punishable by death according to the law. Jesus choose to show mercy instead of judgement.
If understand correct your position is based on three arguments;
- I that the she was not guilty of a crime because both parties were not there to stand trial which the law says they should be.
- There were no eye witnesses to the event so she was not guilty.
- That the request was invalid because Jesus was not qualified to pronounce judgement.
I will deal with them one at a time;
I would agree this situation was a corruption of the law as it was written as you say both parties should have been accused equally, but I do not see how the an imperfect application of the law either makes the woman innocent or the sentence null and void.
You have both stated this is true (in bold in one case), but have nowhere given scriptures that support this premise. If your argument is to hold up this would be key.
I cannot see anything in the scripture to support the 2nd point at all, vs 3 says caught in adultery, nowhere does it say she was caught by a single witnesses, nowhere do I see Jesus make a call for witnesses which are not answered which lighthouse referred, with the positive statement of caught and no other evidence I have to go with the assumption the required amount of witnesses were present.
The third point that Jesus wasn’t qualified to make a judgement, because he wasn’t a judge, levite or priest. Come on there is no one in creation more qualified to make judgement. He will judge the living and the dead. He is also out great high priest, and passes that test hands down. I’d be ashamed to make the argument you just made.
The arguments from what he wrote on the ground must be seen as irrelevant because if they were relevant to the meaning of the story I am sure the gospel writer would have told us what we wrote in the ground. We definitely can’t dogmatic about what was written or drawn.
I find none of your three arguments compelling in any way.
In light of that I still understand the scripture in the way that she was guilty or a crime punishable by death according to the law. Jesus choose to show mercy instead of judgement.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
And you left off that the man wasnt brought there either.
- Nope. Fallacy. She may very well have been guilty, and most likely was. She was not condemned because the law was not followed.
- Same as above.
- More that He was not recognized by these men as qualified, for He was neither an eye witness, a priest or a judge.
It does not make her innocent. It does, however, make the sentence null and void, just as would happen in a court of law today if a corruption of the law took place and was found out.
Really? Did you miss the verses I posted?
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” 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. 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] And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, [Jesus]“Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”[/Jesus]
She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, [Jesus]“Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”[/Jesus]
-John 8:3-11
See the highlighted text? No witnesses when asked for. They all left while He was writing, after He spoke the words regarding who should throw the first stone.
First off Levites and priests are the same thing. And I never said Jesus was unqualified; I only said He was not in a recognized position to make said judgments in the eyes of the men who brought the woman to Him.
Not if he didn't know what Jesus wrote. Do you think John was looking over Jesus' shoulder?
The issue is you can't assume either way.
Because you don't know Scripture.
You are a fool with no understanding.
No he didn't. It was the first point.
Youre right, i was reading that thinking he was talking about the 2 witnesses not being there with that statement.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
No scripture to back that assumption up at all.
Also what kinda of court lets of an offender just because the other guilty party isn't there to answer trial.
Also do you think misapplication of the law was an isolated event or do you think, or do you think practice of the law may of been institutionally corrupt at this point in jewish history?
Yes I did they only made 1/2 of the point you made though. I agree it is a misapplication of the law. I see no evidence to assume that this makes the woman's sentence null and void
OK the translation I use says it in a very different manner
Anyway putting those differences aside look at the order of the story.
All the accusers had already left, not that there were none. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that there were no witnesses just because there were none at this point.
vrs 3 said she had been caught in the act, that means there were witnesses.
Three things
- Priests and Levities are different things
- He was qualified as priest, the book of Hebrews makes this clear.
- I think its highly likely that as an established rabbi he was seen as being culturally authoritative in passing judgement on the law.
The fact he was asked to make judgement supports that
I am not the guy basing my arguments out of what was written in the sand.
If we don't know we cant make any claims based up on it.
I'm the guy basing arguments on what scripture says not what i've have added or heard added to scripture.
and be careful who you call a fool Matthew 5:22
Which, even if true, makes no difference.
You have no evidence for this bolded part. Nor can you have.
God's standard is that murderers are executed swiftly and painfully so that people will learn His law. Your theory is for you to provide evidence for.
It's not logical to judge a change to the system without understanding that the reason for the change is a fundamental change in the people.
No, you're moving the goalposts again. Note the original question - can good come from the execution of an innocent man?
You should have said that to begin with. I wouldn't have answered on the point.
Nope. I just set it out. Repeating this mantra doesn't change the fact that crimes of passion are by definition void of reason. The degree of penalty, the existence of penalty doesn't factor. And we know that because the rates don't change regardless of penalty and variation.
We used to hang people publicly in short order. Didn't slow us down. And you're asserting the application to OT Israel's law to the Gentile. Why?
Explain.
I didn't move them to begin with. And my first answer was qualified for Christ. The rule is contrary to that exception.
You have no evidence that the knowledge of a swift and painful execution will not serve as a deterrent. Nor can you ever have.
Didn't it? Where are your numbers?
Why not?
In order to see an acceptance of God and His standards will require a monumental change in the attitude of the people. With this change will come an education. That education will include, for a judge, how to judge rightly.
What rule? I asked a question. Can good come from the execution of an innocent man?
Yes I do and I've already set it out. But since your entire counter appears to be this particular repetition there's no point in my going on with it. I didn't enter the thread to convince anyone, only to set out my belief and the reason for it.
Run a Google. I'm not doing your footwork and given all you've offered is declaration in contrast I don't feel particularly bad about omitting citation and linkage.
Because we aren't Israel.
That sounds mystically vague. I know how judges are trained. How do you mean?
The rule is no. It's a violation of justice. I only know of one exception and I noted it.
You have your opinion. You need evidence.
You make the claim - you back it up.
That's nice. Why does that mean God's standards for our treatment of criminals changed?
When people follow God's ways, they become better people. Maybe that's a vague and mystical concept for you, but it is true.
I'm not asking for rules. I'm asked you - can it happen?
I have logic, education in the system of law, statistics relating to homicides, that sort of thing. You don't want to apply them.
You haven't and you don't have the background, familiarity, particular education and experience on point.
Do you live by the same law that compelled the Jewish people before Christ? And if not has God's standards changed?
The Jewish people followed the law, God's ways. Were they good enough? How did Christ describe the priests who ruled the Temple?
So you don't know then. Just a general sort of betterment.
I noted the singular exception. Now how does it apply to our consideration?
You need to show evidence that knowledge of a swift and painful execution would not provide a deterrent. We know you have your opinion. But you can have no evidence until the conditions are actually applied and tested.
What? :AMR:
You claimed people used to get hanged which didn't act as a deterrent. How do you know this is the case?
I reckon God's standard for the treatment of murderers could apply as well today as it did for ancient Israel. You reckon it could not. I can't "live by the same law that compelled the Jewish people". We have all new laws that do not submit to God's standard. Things have changed and we have a clear record of what did. One of the things that did not change was God's standard for the punishment of murderers.
:rotfl: Which bible have you been reading?
Not obedient to and ignorant of the law.
Right. We can not know now how good life will be in a society that honours God. But we live in the hope and faith that it will be as He describes. Or you can keep promoting your own ideas as "good enough".
That's a "Yes", right?