Should Christians Support The Death Penalty?

[Barnabas]

On the matter of the woman caught in adultery, if it is true as you say, why did Jesus not take her to the Roman authorities after the Jews had left?

Jesus wasn't a cop and Rome might not have cared about adultery.

This is the better example. Let's say a military aggressor was going to invade a country and the invasion would cause the deaths of 10,000 civilians. Now, let's say to stop the invasion would cause the deaths of 5,000. This meets the criteria of just war if, and only if, there is a good chance the invasion will actually occur, if it is reasonably likely the counterinvasion will succeed, and if all diplomatic solutions have been exhausted.

I think if we executed 5000 a year, we'd save 10,000 lives a year. And, unlike of a war where most of those 5000 dead would be innocent, very few of the 5000 executed would be innocent. That makes executions far more just than your just war example. BTW, I know of no "war" in American history that anywhere approaches your example of a just war. E.g. if the US stayed out of the Iraq war, 5000 americans wouldn't be dead and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis wouldn't be dead.

 

[JustPassingThru]

This is highly contentious.

For one, I can almost guarantee you that if you want to pursue this implementation of strict adherence to Leviticus and the Torah, which even the most orthodox Jews do not believe in, you will end up convicting yourself in it, just as the Pharisees did.

Second, I don't know what you are getting at by the execution of judgment immediately, but I presume it is a response to my comments about jurisprudence, so let me advise you that we do not have prophets living in the USA to ascertain the knowledge of God as to a person's guilt. So, we are left with a Court system that obtains facts based on evidence and convicts when the evidence suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. For capital punishment it has been determined by most jurisdictions that an extensive appellate process also be applied to ensure the law was properly adjudicated. So, yes, if we knew for sure that person was guilty we would summarily execute, but we don't have that certainty.

Finally, in every scientific survey done about jurisdictions with the death penalty they have found it does not deter violent crime and in fact has convincing evidence that it does the opposite.

Friend, have you ever read through the entire Bible, the reason I ask is you come to a Christian Forum with worldly knowledge and wisdom, and I'm not saying that sarcastically or derogatorily. Have you even read the Pentateuch? Where do you find courts, juries and judges in the Law, that's of the world, ...here is God's jurisprudence system,

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Lev 20:1, 2

Notice God's (Jesus) jurisprudence, it's the witnesses that are the executioners, and this is just one example of many where God (Jesus) commands it to done that way, no need for a trial because the executioners are certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt in their witness, it's done speedily, no delay!

Now, about the woman caught in adultery, Jesus didn't stop them, He only set a condition, and in the Greek it was, you that haven't committed the same sin, cast stones, and all of the witnesses left, so without anyone to accuse her, Jesus asked her where were her accusers and seeing that there weren't any, He, acting in Grace, pardoned her.

You are comparing apples to oranges, the American jurisprudence system is not comparable with God's jurisprudence system, may I humbly suggest you study the Pentateuch more fully before you try to debate the ways of God.

One last thing,

"For one, I can almost guarantee you that if you want to pursue this implementation of strict adherence to Leviticus and the Torah, which even the most orthodox Jews do not believe in, you will end up convicting yourself in it, just as the Pharisees did."

Yeah, ....that's the purpose of the Law Gal 3:24, I am guilty, I know that, that's why I have bowed my knees before Jesus Christ as a guilty sinner having broken all of His Law and have received His pardon and salvation, the Pharisees didn't and are in Hell awaiting their final judgement, ...how about you?

 

[MMurphy]

Jesus wasn't a cop and Rome might not have cared about adultery.



I think if we executed 5000 a year, we'd save 10,000 lives a year. And, unlike of a war where most of those 5000 dead would be innocent, very few of the 5000 executed would be innocent. That makes executions far more just than your just war example. BTW, I know of no "war" in American history that anywhere approaches your example of a just war. E.g. if the US stayed out of the Iraq war, 5000 americans wouldn't be dead and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis wouldn't be dead.

There is utterly no basis for the assumption that executing 5,000 would save 10,000. If you intend to save people by preventing a criminal from killing others, well incarceration would perform that job just as well. And if you intend to use execution as a deterrent, I will remind you that all the evidence for this is contrary. Territories that do not impose capital punishment have much less violence than those that do.

As to war, as a rule I generally do not seek to impose judgment on what our commanders-in-chief sincerely believe is necessary to protect their country. However, I would generally agree, other than perhaps WWII not many wars meet the criteria.

Friend, have you ever read through the entire Bible, the reason I ask is you come to a Christian Forum with worldly knowledge and wisdom, and I'm not saying that sarcastically or derogatorily. Have you even read the Pentateuch? Where do you find courts, juries and judges in the Law, that's of the world, ...here is God's jurisprudence system,

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. Lev 20:1, 2

Notice God's (Jesus) jurisprudence, it's the witnesses that are the executioners, and this is just one example of many where God (Jesus) commands it to done that way, no need for a trial because the executioners are certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt in their witness, it's done speedily, no delay!

Now, about the woman caught in adultery, Jesus didn't stop them, He only set a condition, and in the Greek it was, you that haven't committed the same sin, cast stones, and all of the witnesses left, so without anyone to accuse her, Jesus asked her where were her accusers and seeing that there weren't any, He, acting in Grace, pardoned her.

You are comparing apples to oranges, the American jurisprudence system is not comparable with God's jurisprudence system, may I humbly suggest you study the Pentateuch more fully before you try to debate the ways of God.

One last thing,

"For one, I can almost guarantee you that if you want to pursue this implementation of strict adherence to Leviticus and the Torah, which even the most orthodox Jews do not believe in, you will end up convicting yourself in it, just as the Pharisees did."

Yeah, ....that's the purpose of the Law Gal 3:24, I am guilty, I know that, that's why I have bowed my knees before Jesus Christ as a guilty sinner having broken all of His Law and have received His pardon and salvation, the Pharisees didn't and are in Hell awaiting their final judgement, ...how about you?

First of all, the Pentateuch, and yes I have read it, was a part of the constitution for the Kingdom of Israel, or what would eventually become a Kingdom. The Mosaic Laws was particularly set forward to Israel, to which God would provide many prophets to speak to His people. Some principles can be cross applied, but others can not. Can you imagine how many innocent people would be stoned to death by FALSE WITNESSES in a country of 300 million?

Next, John 8:7 does not read how you have written it. Young's Literal Translation writes it as: "The Sinless of you--let him first cast the stone at her..." and as such does not make a distinction about what sin is committed, only that one is committed. Since everyone has sinned we therefore have no right to judge another person's sins. The only person who is qualified is Christ himself, the only sinless person.

Finally, it is distasteful for you to cosign any individual to Hell, and in addition it is highly pretentious for you to suggest that I am hellbound.

 

[JustPassingThru]

There is utterly no basis for the assumption that executing 5,000 would save 10,000. If you intend to save people by preventing a criminal from killing others, well incarceration would perform that job just as well. And if you intend to use execution as a deterrent, I will remind you that all the evidence for this is contrary. Territories that do not impose capital punishment have much less violence than those that do.

As to war, as a rule I generally do not seek to impose judgment on what our commanders-in-chief sincerely believe is necessary to protect their country. However, I would generally agree, other than perhaps WWII not many wars meet the criteria.


First of all, the Pentateuch, and yes I have read it, was a part of the constitution for the Kingdom of Israel, or what would eventually become a Kingdom. The Mosaic Laws was particularly set forward to Israel, to which God would provide many prophets to speak to His people. Some principles can be cross applied, but others can not. Can you imagine how many innocent people would be stoned to death by FALSE WITNESSES in a country of 300 million?

Next, John 8:7 does not read how you have written it. Young's Literal Translation writes it as: "The Sinless of you--let him first cast the stone at her..." and as such does not make a distinction about what sin is committed, only that one is committed. Since everyone has sinned we therefore have no right to judge another person's sins. The only person who is qualified is Christ himself, the only sinless person.

Finally, it is distasteful for you to cosign any individual to Hell, and in addition it is highly pretentious for you to suggest that I am hellbound.

You follow Young's I follow Robert's, no difference, the point was all of the witnesses were sinners, and like has already been stated is was to trap Jesus, it was not about stoning the guilty woman, and Jesus, sitting as a Just Judge in His court and using His law could not condemn her because there weren't any witnesses to preform the execution.

Friend, why all of the assumptions?

I'm not cosigning anyone to Hell, the Word does and you did,

"...you will end up convicting yourself in it, just as the Pharisees did."

You said the Pharisees convicted themselves and the logical Biblical conclusion is if they didn't repent they are in Hell today.

All I asked is if you have bowed your knees before Jesus Christ to receive pardon and salvation, ...like I have, ...you are the one speaking of hell-bound.

 

[MMurphy]

You follow Young's I follow Robert's, no difference, the point was all of the witnesses were sinners, and like has already been stated is was to trap Jesus, it was not about stoning the guilty woman, and Jesus, sitting as a Just Judge in His court and using His law could not condemn her because there weren't any witnesses to preform the execution.

Friend, why all of the assumptions?

I'm not cosigning anyone to Hell, the Word does and you did,

"...you will end up convicting yourself in it, just as the Pharisees did."

You said the Pharisees convicted themselves and the logical Biblical conclusion is if they didn't repent they are in Hell today.

All I asked is if you have bowed your knees before Jesus Christ to receive pardon and salvation, ...like I have, ...you are the one speaking of hell-bound.

Well you said the accusers were guilty of adultery also, but that is not in scripture insofar as I can see, and in any case the more important principle is that they had sinned at all.

But in any case I don't really understand what your getting at anymore. Are you advocating vigilantism, that if we witness a crime we are justified to kill them?

My point is that in modern times we institute a system of jurisprudence that requires an appellate process to execute someone and I think it would be unwise to do this.

Now I understand the biblical argument, mainly from the OT for the death penalty but as I said before I believe that those punishments are just in theory, but in practice one should be afforded ample opportunity to repent.

Finally, I don't mean convict to be the same as damned. That is a divine prerogative, but rather I say from the Bible the measure you use to judge will be measured back against you. So advocating for the stoning of sinners will ultimately bring about your own death. Damnation is different than death and assuming unrepenrance is quite an assumption.

And to set you straight, yes I have bowed before the Lord Jesus Christ and accepted Him as my savior.

 

[Barnabas]

There is utterly no basis for the assumption that executing 5,000 would save 10,000. If you intend to save people by preventing a criminal from killing others, well incarceration would perform that job just as well.

Hundreds of people are killed each year by convicted murderers. And, I think places that have done away with the death penalty did so after crime rates were lower. Modern technology itself has been a powerful force against crime. Technology makes it harder to commit crimes and harder to get away with crimes. Prosperity from technology affords us a welfare state that eliminates need as a cause of crime. Abortion and birth control has caused the average age of the population to increase, decreasing as percent the younger people most disposed to crime.

I suspect the kingdom of Israel had a very low murder rate. Swift and certain execution does have a deterrent effect, which in turn reduces the opportunity for innocent people to be convicted. Murder, by definition, is premeditated. So, people do have time to think about the fact that they don't want to be executed. But, as it is, they know they'll likely just get a slap on the wrist if they're convicted.

Next, does not read how you have written it. Young's Literal Translation writes it as: "The Sinless of you--let him first cast the stone at her..." and as such does not make a distinction about what sin is committed, only that one is committed. Since everyone has sinned we therefore have no right to judge another person's sins. The only person who is qualified is Christ himself, the only sinless person.

You're just taking from the account what you want and ignoring the full story. You're ignoring it was a trap, as sid by scripture, and you don't care how it was a trap.

Do you really think that any of those scribes and pharisees cared about what Jesus said? How far do you think it would take you if you're in court and you tell the judge, or the jury, "convict me if you're without crime," They'd laugh at your silliness. Every member of the jury would vote to convict you and they'd go home and tell their spouses, "This idiot, who was caught red-handed, told us to only convict him if we haven't committed any crimes! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

 

[MMurphy]

Hundreds of people are killed each year by convicted murderers. And, I think places that have done away with the death penalty did so after crime rates were lower. Modern technology itself has been a powerful force against crime. Technology makes it harder to commit crimes and harder to get away with crimes. Prosperity from technology affords us a welfare state that eliminates need as a cause of crime. Abortion and birth control has caused the average age of the population to increase, decreasing as percent the younger people most disposed to crime.

I suspect the kingdom of Israel had a very low murder rate. Swift and certain execution does have a deterrent effect, which in turn reduces the opportunity for innocent people to be convicted. Murder, by definition, is premeditated. So, people do have time to think about the fact that they don't want to be executed. But, as it is, they know they'll likely just get a slap on the wrist if they're convicted.



You're just taking from the account what you want and ignoring the full story. You're ignoring it was a trap, as sid by scripture, and you don't care how it was a trap.

Do you really think that any of those scribes and pharisees cared about what Jesus said? How far do you think it would take you if you're in court and you tell the judge, or the jury, "convict me if you're without crime," They'd laugh at your silliness. Every member of the jury would vote to convict you and they'd go home and tell their spouses, "This idiot, who was caught red-handed, told us to only convict him if we haven't committed any crimes! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

Whether or not capital punishment is a good policy is neither here nor there. I'm more interested in the morality of it.

I have read John 8 but I do not think the trap was to see if He knew the proceedures of the law. I believe the trap was to see if they could trick Him into stoning her after He was preaching about not judging others. I read that Jesus was compassionate and loving and I think the Pharisees wanted to trap Him into doing something contrary to His human will, in order to keep His divine Will. Or vice versa. And instead He kept both human and divine will.

Lastly, rule of law is different than passing judgment on a person. I think the important point here was to afford people the opportunity to repent which clears them of the guilt of the crime that deserves the punishment of death.

 

[JustPassingThru]

Well you said the accusers were guilty of adultery also, but that is not in scripture insofar as I can see, and in any case the more important principle is that they had sinned at all.

But in any case I don't really understand what your getting at anymore. Are you advocating vigilantism, that if we witness a crime we are justified to kill them?

My point is that in modern times we institute a system of jurisprudence that requires an appellate process to execute someone and I think it would be unwise to do this.

Now I understand the biblical argument, mainly from the OT for the death penalty but as I said before I believe that those punishments are just in theory, but in practice one should be afforded ample opportunity to repent.

Finally, I don't mean convict to be the same as damned. That is a divine prerogative, but rather I say from the Bible the measure you use to judge will be measured back against you. So advocating for the stoning of sinners will ultimately bring about your own death. Damnation is different than death and assuming unrepenrance is quite an assumption.

And to set you straight, yes I have bowed before the Lord Jesus Christ and accepted Him as my savior.

"Well you said the accusers were guilty of adultery also, but that is not in scripture insofar as I can see, and in any case the more important principle is that they had sinned at all."

Greek scholars much more scholarly than me say that Jesus said the same sin, in the sense that he called it a private sin, however, even more condemning is they all sinned, you have sinned (if you are married) and I have sinned the same sin when we have looked at a woman and lusted after her, and since Adam there is only one Man that hasn't committed this sin.

But in any case I don't really understand what your getting at anymore. Are you advocating vigilantism, that if we witness a crime we are justified to kill them?

Why do you keep saying it's what I'm advocating or suggesting, I didn't write the book, why can't you see that, it's what God (Jesus) said to do.

Now I understand the biblical argument, mainly from the OT for the death penalty but as I said before I believe that those punishments are just in theory, but in practice one should be afforded ample opportunity to repent.

But it's not theory, it's the commandments of God.

My point is that in modern times we institute a system of jurisprudence that requires an appellate process to execute someone and I think it would be unwise to do this.

Yes, I don't disagree that that is the way it is today, what I'm trying to show you with Scripture is God's way.

Finally, I don't mean convict to be the same as damned. That is a divine prerogative, but rather 1 I say from the Bible the measure you use to judge will be measured back against you. 2 So advocating for the stoning of sinners will ultimately bring about your own death. 3 Damnation is different than death and assuming unrepenrance is quite an assumption.

1 I agree with the verse, but I'm not the one doing the judging, God is.
2 That's the New Age philosophy of karma, there are many people in the Bible that this didn't apply to and there are many people today that don't get what the deserve, i.e., murderers in prison that are sentenced to life instead of executed, ...which is the subject of this thread.
3 I'm not even going to waste my time to respond to this, you are the one assuming, I gave you what God's Word says.

And to set you straight, yes I have bowed before the Lord Jesus Christ and accepted Him as my savior

Praise the Lord brother!

I'm finished here, time to eat,

Blessings,

Gene

 

[Barnabas]

I have read but I do not think the trap was to see if He knew the proceedures of the law. I believe the trap was to see if they could trick Him into stoning her after He was preaching about not judging others. I read that Jesus was compassionate and loving and I think the Pharisees wanted to trap Him into doing something contrary to His human will, in order to keep His divine Will. Or vice versa. And instead He kept both human and divine will.

Jesus didn't preach not to judge others. Elsewhere, he taught not to judge hypocritically, which may be why some people think the scribes and pharisees were also guilty of adultery, but I highly doubt any of them were guilty of adultery. And, it wouldn't have made any difference them even if they were guilty of adultery.

If, on your false premise, Jesus taught not to judge, how would it be a trap to give him an opportunity not to judge? What transpired that could have tricked Jesus, or even the average Joe? That's no trap. You're still refusing to recognize the trap, because it's only a trap if Jesus believed in stoning adulterers.

Lastly, rule of law is different than passing judgment on a person. I think the important point here was to afford people the opportunity to repent which clears them of the guilt of the crime that deserves the punishment of death.

If someone's not going to repent when stones are about to be hurled at them, they're not going to repent. And, you're still arguing against God who, not me, decreed that adulterers should be stoned.

 

[Roads]

You need to repent for that blood on your hands, and not vicariously spill any more blood by opposing God's decrees and facilitating crimes against innocent people.

I'm just going to suggest that might be a bit harsh, for the following reasons:

I can see that you're arguing from a position of compassion, and I don't want to assume too much, but I suspect it might be only compassion for the victims of crimes. There seem to be some other issues at work as well, like a certain understanding of justice and God's law and a few other things, but let's just talk about compassion for now.

If we have experienced for ourselves the mercy of God instead of His justice, do we not feel compelled to pass that along to others? If we have been hoped for when we ourselves were hopeless, do we not want to pass on that hope on to others?

I am asking you to consider that the people you are speaking with may be opposed to the idea of capital punishment not because they are getting their "values from the ungodly" with "no compassion for the innocent and no sense of righteous judgement," but they are getting their values from what they have experienced for themselves because of Christ, and are desiring to reflect that Christlike nature back to others.

Perhaps the issue is not so simple as "opposing the death penalty definitively equals vicariously facilitating crimes against the innocent." Perhaps there are ways -- or we can seek to learn new ways -- where we can balance compassion for victims and perpetrators both, being practical about reducing risk of re-offence toward the general public while still having hope that a person far from God can be forgiven and reconciled to Him.

Yes, absolutely, you're right that we do want to have compassion for victims, and protect the innocent. But perhaps there is room to discuss whether or not we absolutely need to spill blood to make that possible, and whether or not, in the Bible, there is room for mercy in place of vengeance.

I hope you are at least able to see the perspective of the people you've been speaking to, and understand that even though you may disagree with them, they are trying to respond to and reflect values they've learned from their experience with Christ, not from secular society. I hope you can keep that in mind, that you are speaking with brothers and sisters whose hearts for compassion come from Christ as you continue to explore these issues with them.

 

[MMurphy]

Jesus didn't preach not to judge others. Elsewhere, he taught not to judge hypocritically, which may be why some people think the scribes and pharisees were also guilty of adultery, but I highly doubt any of them were guilty of adultery. And, it wouldn't have made any difference them even if they were guilty of adultery.

If, on your false premise, Jesus taught not to judge, how would it be a trap to give him an opportunity not to judge? What transpired that could have tricked Jesus, or even the average Joe? That's no trap. You're still refusing to recognize the trap, because it's only a trap if Jesus believed in stoning adulterers.



If someone's not going to repent when stones are about to be hurled at them, they're not going to repent. And, you're still arguing against God who, not me, decreed that adulterers should be stoned.

The point that I've been making is that we are all hypocritical when we judge others and so we store wrath up for ourselves. The only place I've seen in the NT where it permits judgment is in Paul's letters and these I believe were in very limited circumstances pertaining especially to compelled people to repent.

Now back to the trap. I can't speak as an expert, but for one I don't see Jesus' reaction as being indicative of what you're suggesting and two reading the totality of the Gospel, the message that all fall short of God's commandments runs right in line with the hard heartedness of the Pharisees in the story. I think the trap was that Jesus preached mercy and the Pharisees believed in the letter of the law so they wanted to see if He would break the commands in order to have mercy.

Finally, your presumption that people will not repent unless they have stones flying at them fails to recognize the power of the Holy Spirit to change the heart.

 

[MMurphy]

"Well you said the accusers were guilty of adultery also, but that is not in scripture insofar as I can see, and in any case the more important principle is that they had sinned at all."

Greek scholars much more scholarly than me say that Jesus said the same sin, in the sense that he called it a private sin, however, even more condemning is they all sinned, you have sinned (if you are married) and I have sinned the same sin when we have looked at a woman and lusted after her, and since Adam there is only one Man that hasn't committed this sin.

But in any case I don't really understand what your getting at anymore. Are you advocating vigilantism, that if we witness a crime we are justified to kill them?

Why do you keep saying it's what I'm advocating or suggesting, I didn't write the book, why can't you see that, it's what God (Jesus) said to do.

Now I understand the biblical argument, mainly from the OT for the death penalty but as I said before I believe that those punishments are just in theory, but in practice one should be afforded ample opportunity to repent.

But it's not theory, it's the commandments of God.

My point is that in modern times we institute a system of jurisprudence that requires an appellate process to execute someone and I think it would be unwise to do this.

Yes, I don't disagree that that is the way it is today, what I'm trying to show you with Scripture is God's way.

Finally, I don't mean convict to be the same as damned. That is a divine prerogative, but rather 1 I say from the Bible the measure you use to judge will be measured back against you. 2 So advocating for the stoning of sinners will ultimately bring about your own death. 3 Damnation is different than death and assuming unrepenrance is quite an assumption.

1 I agree with the verse, but I'm not the one doing the judging, God is.
2 That's the New Age philosophy of karma, there are many people in the Bible that this didn't apply to and there are many people today that don't get what the deserve, i.e., murderers in prison that are sentenced to life instead of executed, ...which is the subject of this thread.
3 I'm not even going to waste my time to respond to this, you are the one assuming, I gave you what God's Word says.

And to set you straight, yes I have bowed before the Lord Jesus Christ and accepted Him as my savior

Praise the Lord brother!

I'm finished here, time to eat,

Blessings,

Gene

Just a few things here.

I never said anything about karma. If you read the mosaic laws you will see that there is scarcely anyone who could avoid death, so by advocating for it you will ultimately bring your own conviction. This is what I believe Jesus taught us, that we all fall short and we all deserve death. Therefore it is good for us to have mercy on others as He had mercy on us.

I am also wondering if you believe the jury system is unbiblical?

 

[Barnabas]

The point that I've been making is that we are all hypocritical when we judge others and so we store wrath up for ourselves.

So, close down the courts, empty the jails, tear up your parking tickets?

The only place I've seen in the NT where it permits judgment is in Paul's letters and these I believe were in very limited circumstances pertaining especially to compelled people to repent.

Everyone who preaches against judging is a hypocrite. They not only judge others in all manner of things, but they also judge others for judging. You know where he says "Judge not"? That passage ends with Jesus telling us to judge, after we clear up our hypocrisy. The anti-judging preachers are the biggest violators of Jesus' instruction "judge not...".

I think the trap was that Jesus preached mercy and the Pharisees believed in the letter of the law so they wanted to see if He would break the commands in order to have mercy.

If the scribes and the pharisees wanted to fallow the letter of the law, they would have stoned the girl, regardless of what Jesus said. And, it's laughable for anyone to think saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone" will stop the wheels of justice? You're still refusing to believe the truth, what the trap was.

Finally, your presumption that people will not repent unless they have stones flying at them fails to recognize the power of the Holy Spirit to change the heart.

Well, then, if the Holy Spirit wants to change someone's heat, a stoning isn't going to get in the way. And, you're still arguing against the Creator of the Universe, not against me. Stoning is his decree, not mine.

 

[Glomung]

I am also wondering if you believe the jury system is unbiblical?

The jury system is COMPLETELY unbiblical, it comes from Roman law.
The notion was to ask around to see if local witnesses "juris" could tell the investigator what had happened.
Biblical or not, it's a good idea.

 

[MMurphy]

So, close down the courts, empty the jails, tear up your parking tickets?



Everyone who preaches against judging is a hypocrite. They not only judge others in all manner of things, but they also judge others for judging. You know where he says "Judge not"? That passage ends with Jesus telling us to judge, after we clear up our hypocrisy. The anti-judging preachers are the biggest violators of Jesus' instruction "judge not...".



If the scribes and the pharisees wanted to fallow the letter of the law, they would have stoned the girl, regardless of what Jesus said. And, it's laughable for anyone to think saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone" will stop the wheels of justice? You're still refusing to believe the truth, what the trap was.



Well, then, if the Holy Spirit wants to change someone's heat, a stoning isn't going to get in the way. And, you're still arguing against the Creator of the Universe, not against me. Stoning is his decree, not mine.

There is a difference between upholding the rule of law and refraining from passing judgment on another person. A judge in any court system in the civilized world adjudicates based on the facts of the case and in fact judgments based on character is not likely to be upheld, and I think this is what God wants us to do.

And I'm not arguing with God, I'm arguing with your interpretation of His word and particular your belief that it teaches judgment and not mercy.

 

[MMurphy]

The jury system is COMPLETELY unbiblical, it comes from Roman law.
The notion was to ask around to see if local witnesses "juris" could tell the investigator what had happened.
Biblical or not, it's a good idea.

Well the Bible teaches to uphold the rule of law and jury trials work well to that end.

 

[JustPassingThru]

The point that I've been making is that we are all hypocritical when we judge others and so we store wrath up for ourselves. The only place I've seen in the NT where it permits judgment is in Paul's letters and these I believe were in very limited circumstances pertaining especially to compelled people to repent.

Now back to the trap. I can't speak as an expert, but for one I don't see Jesus' reaction as being indicative of what you're suggesting and two reading the totality of the Gospel, the message that all fall short of God's commandments runs right in line with the hard heartedness of the Pharisees in the story. I think the trap was that Jesus preached mercy and the Pharisees believed in the letter of the law so they wanted to see if He would break the commands in order to have mercy.

Finally, your presumption that people will not repent unless they have stones flying at them fails to recognize the power of the Holy Spirit to change the heart.

How about this, from the lips of Jesus,

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. John 7:24

As you can see, what Paul taught he received from Jesus, may I humbly suggest you do a word study on the words judge and judgement to be better informed about the subject you are discussing?

Also, you still can't see that you yourself are judging, you are judging God's Word as to whether it is applicable to us today and in our individual lives, like I have already stated, we don't/can't judge the Word, it's the Word that judges us,

For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:12

Please, take the time to meditate on this verse, what is being judged, ...can't you see it is man that is being judged by the Word, ...when we judge the Word that makes us higher than God and that is what lucifer/satan wanted to do,

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Isa 14:12-14

Now don't jump to the conclusion, like you have in other posts, and think I'm calling you satan, that is NOT what I'm doing, what I am doing, in brotherly love, is warning you about the trap satan has to ensnare God's children,

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. 2Ti 2:24-26

What you are actually saying in this thread is, ...did God really say that? Can't you see the snare, ...who was the first recorded being in the Word to say that?

In this thread you have said I was barbarous, a vigilante, but I haven't given you my opinions, they are worthless, what I have tried to show you is what God has said in His Word, so in actuality you are saying God is barbarous, that God is a vigilante, ...please stop and think about it.

Gene

 

[MMurphy]

How about this, from the lips of Jesus,

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. John 7:24

As you can see, what Paul taught he received from Jesus, may I humbly suggest you do a word study on the words judge and judgement to be better informed about the subject you are discussing?

Also, you still can't see that you yourself are judging, you are judging God's Word as to whether it is applicable to us today and in our individual lives, like I have already stated, we don't/can't judge the Word, it's the Word that judges us,

For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:12

Please, take the time to meditate on this verse, what is being judged, ...can't you see it is man that is being judged by the Word, ...when we judge the Word that makes us higher than God and that is what lucifer/satan wanted to do,

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Isa 14:12-14

Now don't jump to the conclusion, like you have in other posts, and think I'm calling you satan, that is NOT what I'm doing, what I am doing, in brotherly love, is warning you about the trap satan has to ensnare God's children,

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. 2Ti 2:24-26

What you are actually saying in this thread is, ...did God really say that? Can't you see the snare, ...who was the first recorded being in the Word to say that?

In this thread you have said I was barbarous, a vigilante, but I haven't given you my opinions, they are worthless, what I have tried to show you is what God has said in His Word, so in actuality you are saying God is barbarous, that God is a vigilante, ...please stop and think about it.

Gene

It is difficult to have a discussion with you when you first write that I say things that I haven't said and also hide you beliefs behind biblical infallibility.

I did not say God was barbaric, I didn't even say you were, I said that the idea you propagated, that it is mericiful to execute someone to hasten their return to heaven is a barbaric one.

I asked if you believed in vigilantism because you suggested that witnesses of a crime were called to stone the person to death.

Let me tell you why I'm not disagreeing with God, it is because I am not saying that a word in the bible is wrong, I am saying that the ideas you are extracting from it are. And I say this because I know that such things as vigilantism and 'merciful' execution, leads to all kinds of evils and the Bible does not teach evil. So rather than insisting that evil is not evil, which would comprise my heart, I say that instead the person reading the Bible is fallible and probably reading it wrong.

The woman caught in adultery teaches us to be merciful. Period.

 

[JustPassingThru]

It is difficult to have a discussion with you when you first write that I say things that I haven't said and also hide you beliefs behind biblical infallibility.

I did not say God was barbaric, I didn't even say you were, I said that the idea you propagated, that it is mericiful to execute someone to hasten their return to heaven is a barbaric one.

I asked if you believed in vigilantism because you suggested that witnesses of a crime were called to stone the person to death.

Let me tell you why I'm not disagreeing with God, it is because I am not saying that a word in the bible is wrong, I am saying that the ideas you are extracting from it are. And I say this because I know that such things as vigilantism and 'merciful' execution, leads to all kinds of evils and the Bible does not teach evil. So rather than insisting that evil is not evil, which would comprise my heart, I say that instead the person reading the Bible is fallible and probably reading it wrong.

The woman caught in adultery teaches us to be merciful. Period.

Really???

Okay I'll put it all together for you very quickly.

The title of this thread is, Should Christians support the death penalty?

And the BIBLICAL answer is YES!

The most obvious reason, that should be clear to even the youngest baby christian, is because God said it.

But that is not the primary reason, the primary reason is without the death penalty (which is the effect) because of a man shedding another man's blood (which is the cause) we could not be saved.

In Adam's disobedience he murdered all of his children Gen 2:17 Gen 5:3, God instituted a spiritual principle of if a man sheds another man's blood he must be put to death Gen 9, 5, 6, God gave another spiritual principle in that the life is in the blood Lev 17:11 and it's by the blood that a man can have atonement, He then instituted a system of sacrifices using animal blood to cover man's sin, but later, in the fullness of time, He stated that the blood of animals could not make atonement for man Heb 10:4, it must be a man's blood, a man for a man (can you see the correlation?), but what man wasn't under the curse of the first man?

Then Jesus comes on the scene and men kill Him, but that was the plan of God to have a sacrifice to make atonement for each and every man, the blood of the God-Man, the Lamb of God.

Adam murdered us and we murder our children in that we pass on to them our sin nature and they pass on to their children their sin nature, Jesus was born a man without a sin nature so all of the children He engenders are born without a sin nature 2 Cor 5:17, ...the murdering stops, how, if a man sheds a man's blood His blood must be shed, but the Last Adam was/is God and He wasn't a murdered and His blood was sufficient to pay the price, to be the propitiation, that is the end of the spiritual principle, but that is not the end of the physical principle, ....the OT was material and physical, the NT is spiritual and eternal, big difference, and the confusion is when we try to eliminate one or join one t0 the other.

Now, take some time to prayerfully wrap your head around that and let it sink down deep into your soul.

Blessings,

Gene

 

[MMurphy]

Really???

Okay I'll put it all together for you very quickly.

The title of this thread is, Should Christians support the death penalty?

And the BIBLICAL answer is YES!

The most obvious reason, that should be clear to even the youngest baby christian, is because God said it.

But that is not the primary reason, the primary reason is without the death penalty (which is the effect) because of a man shedding another man's blood (which is the cause) we could not be saved.

In Adam's disobedience he murdered all of his children Gen 2:17 Gen 5:3, God instituted a spiritual principle of if a man sheds another man's blood he must be put to death Gen 9, 5, 6, God gave another spiritual principle in that the life is in the blood Lev 17:11 and it's by the blood that a man can have atonement, He then instituted a system of sacrifices using animal blood to cover man's sin, but later, in the fullness of time, He stated that the blood of animals could not make atonement for man Heb 10:4, it must be a man's blood, a man for a man (can you see the correlation?), but what man wasn't under the curse of the first man?

Then Jesus comes on the scene and men kill Him, but that was the plan of God to have a sacrifice to make atonement for each and every man, the blood of the God-Man, the Lamb of God.

Adam murdered us and we murder our children in that we pass on to them our sin nature and they pass on to their children their sin nature, Jesus was born a man without a sin nature so all of the children He engenders are born without a sin nature 2 Cor 5:17, ...the murdering stops, how, if a man sheds a man's blood His blood must be shed, but the Last Adam was/is God and He wasn't a murdered and His blood was sufficient to pay the price, to be the propitiation, that is the end of the spiritual principle, but that is not the end of the physical principle, ....the OT was material and physical, the NT is spiritual and eternal, big difference, and the confusion is when we try to eliminate one or join one t0 the other.

Now, take some time to prayerfully wrap your head around that and let it sink down deep into your soul.

Blessings,

Gene

Thank you for the theology lesson JPT. However, that is not what we are talking about and virtually nothing you have said pertains to the discussion.

There are many sincere Christians who oppose the death penalty, so it baffles me how little regard you pay to them in formulating your own thesis.

As I have said before, I do not consider the OT regulations pertaining to crime and punishment to be either exhaustive nor definitive. The regulations I see as establishing certain principles particularly to the Israelites and particularly to demonstrate to them their own impotence to keep them. Thus, I believe they should be regarded as the proper punishment in principle but not in practice because in practice people can repent.

You fundamentally differ with me when it comes to how we should apply the OT regulations, which is fine, but if that be the case, should we apply the death penalty not only for murders but also for say adulterers? And for that matter how strictly should we apply the rest of the laws, for instance dietary?