-
📚 Admin Project Update: I've added a major feature to PictureBooks.io called Avatar Studio! You can now upload photos to instantly turn your kids (and pets! 🐶) into illustrated characters that star in their own stories. Give it a try and let me know what you think!
Congress Shackles Westboro Baptist Church
- Thread starter KaiserElectric
- Start date
Or is doing his best, but happens to be human. I've pointed out numerous times that anybody who thinks that they are following Jesus perfectly is wrong, because to think that is arrogance in itself.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Many of those people seem to end up drinking the Kool-Aid like the People's Temple or Heaven's Gate groups.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Law to the proud and grace to the humble. The whole point is that we can't follow PERFECTLY, and no matter how much we claimed to give to the Lord, we will always hold something back. Even Peter, who WAS Jesus disciple, denied him three times in fear. Peter was a disciple, but not a perfect one, because there IS no such thing as a perfect one.
The rich man held onto his money as an idol. He refused to be broken before Jesus and admit his sin. Instead, he claimed he had followed all of the commandments. Jesus had to show him he was broken and needed a Savior. He didn't see it, but instead, like many people on this forum, asked "What can I do to get to heaven." That was the point. "Nothing."
Now, as for "Are individual Christians commanded to sell everything?" The fact that Annanias and Saphira were told they sinned because they lied, and not because they held back some money, shows that the answer was not always "Yes." Its not an absolute requirement. Nevertheless, those who do will certainly attain additional treasure in Heaven, as Christ taught. Also, we cannot SERVE both God and Money. If we worship money, we have an idol in our lives that, if we are saved, we will ultimately allow Christ to deal with.
Where did I say "Perfectly"?
It seems that if you don't really even try to sell your possessions and give to the poor that you are so knowlingly far off the standard that you can't consider yourself a sincere follower of Jesus.
There?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Yeah, because they weren't doing it according to hebrew law.
GhostWriter16
Deity
My family's actually not THAT far off from poor by Western standards. And I'm using this computer to proclaim the gospel which I assume gives me a free pass of sorts
(Ignoring the fact that I've actually explained how that verse doesn't apply to everything several times and yet you keep repeating it. Basically, that means you know you lost the Biblical debate but don't want to admit it, or think that I'm wrong in spite of the fact that I'm Biblically correct.)
"A Christian is a follower of Christ."
"A Christian is someone who follows Christ perfectly."
Can't you see the difference between the first statement (The one I said) and the second one (The one you seem to be trying to make me say, but that I never said)?
Oh, and I'd be the first to admit that if the second statement were true, I'd be on the road to roasting in Hell. As would even the Apostle Paul (Romans 7) although Paul was certainly a much much much much much much much much (And this is abbreviated because it really should be there like a google times, and I don't have enough time in my entire life to type it out that many times) better Christian than I am or ever will be.
Did they actually break Hebrew law? In what way? I'm seriously asking because I'm not familiar with how this violated Hebrew law. I think the most logical interpretation, even though the canonicity of this passage is questionable, is that they were being overly legalistic in their application of the law and needed to learn grace.
Nope, I just think you selectively interpret the Bible. Proclaiming a materialistic gospel does not give you a passMy family's actually not THAT far off from poor by Western standards. And I'm using this computer to proclaim the gospel which I assume gives me a free pass of sorts
(Ignoring the fact that I've actually explained how that verse doesn't apply to everything several times and yet you keep repeating it. Basically, that means you know you lost the Biblical debate but don't want to admit it, or think that I'm wrong in spite of the fact that I'm Biblically correct.)
Berzerker
Deity
What did Jesus say?
"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"
Did he tell them to kill her according to Hebrew law? He didn't say a word supporting that interpretation, and supposedly the only one there without sin was Jesus and he didn't punish her... But you think that incident shows Jesus upholding the death penalty?
KaiserElectric
Total Freakin Besties
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,461
I really don't think that you can use the bible to justify anyone's actions good or bad. Like it or not, the Bible is not the Word of God, it's the interpretation of the Word of God by fallible humans. God really had nothing to do with writing it when you really think about it.
Before anyone gets offended, I'd like to point out that I'm Roman Catholic, not an atheist.
Before anyone gets offended, I'd like to point out that I'm Roman Catholic, not an atheist.
Berzerker
Deity
well...that makes your blasphemy even worse
GhostWriter16
Deity
I don't think that passage can be used to support OR oppose the death penalty. I think Jesus was trying to teach a moral lesson both that the Pharisees were being hypocrites, and that mercy has a place. I don't think he was saying not to use the death penalty, but he wasn't saying to use it either. Jesus obviously wanted to use the situation to hopefully get her to come to a place of saving faith, which she couldn't really do if she was dead.
I wouldn't get offended by that, I'd just disagree. That said, your own Church teaches that at least on matters of faith and morals the Bible is an authoritative source, even though I think they use eisegesis on several texts in order to justify their teaching.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
In order for someone to be judged and put to death there had to be 3 judges present, not just 1, and there had to be testimony from a certain number of witness's to the event.
In essence, the pharisees were setting Jesus up to break the law so they could have him killed. It was simply an attempt at entrapment.
Yup, he saw exactly how the Pharisees were trying to entrap him so set a qualifier where no one would be able to act. He beat them at their own game as it were.
I think it an incident that shows Jesus knowing that the Pharisees were out to kill him, and avoiding that. Remember, Jesus also said that he didnt come to change the law (not one jot) but to fulfill it. Hebrew Law did indeed carry the death penalty so if he wasnt coming to change that then how can you argue he was against the death penalty?
So the stoners and prostitute thing was more of a legal procedure lesson than a spiritual one? Interesting.
GhostWriter16
Deity
This is a fair point that I didn't think of before, but do you really think if it had been done "Correctly" Jesus would have waved his hands and said "Yeah, go ahead, kill her." I don't think so. I think Jesus clearly wanted to critcize the Pharisees for their hypocricy and to show forgiveness to this woman. And just so we're clear, I do generally believe in the death penalty and don't think Jesus had any intristic problems with it. But mercy obviously had a place to, and Jesus, being perfect, can show mercy to anyone he wants, which was also part of the point.
Do you believe adultery should still carry a death penalty?
Jesus did indeed say this, but "Fulfill" isn't really the same thing as "Keep following" either. An example is animal sacrifices (This is the clearest one.) They existed as a foreshadowing of Christ. Christ fulfilled them.
I think the moral laws are in effect today, while the ceremonial laws were all fulfilled, just like animal sacrifices, and so while they weren't CHANGED, they still aren't actually applied. Nevertheless, they are useful so we can look at them and see how Jesus fulfilled them.
The legal laws, on the other hand, such as those prescribing certain penalties for actions, were simply to give a divinely inspired legal system to a theocratic country, and so while they are guidelines of sorts there's no good reason we have to actually use them in our country.
What is your opinion on that interpretation?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I think if you dont appreciate the context of the legal procedure of the day, then your assumption about what it all means may indeed be lacking.
I'll admit to not reading the Bible like a Pharisee.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
The male with whom the woman committed adultery was conspicuously absent from this trial, even though under the law he too would be a defendant facing the same penalty.
Under Jewish Law it was the responsibility of the two witnesses required for a conviction also act as the executioners. Only one of the witnesses against her could cast the first stone.
If the witnesses were found to be false (even on minor issues not directly relating to the crime), then they were to be given whatever punishment that the accused would be given if convicted.
According to the Oral Law of the Pharisees, the witnesses are considered false unless they could both confirm not only that the other was also there to witness the crime, but that they warned the accused of the wrongness of her action before she committed it and then stayed around to see the whole deed. They had to warn her of the punishment and hear her acknowledge it within seconds of committing the crime. Speech impediments and difficulty hearing invalidated a witness, as they cast doubt on whether the accused understood the warning.
Only adult Jewish men with legitimate professions who were familiar with both the oral and written torah and were known to keep the law could be witnesses.
The Oral Law required only allowed capital punishment after conviction by a jury of at least 23 adult Jewish men who know and keep both the written and oral law. They needed more than a simple majority to convict, but since unanimous ruling was seen as a sign of bribery or group-think a lack of dissent resulted in a mistrial. If Jesus had agreed to kill her, then the decision would have been unanimous and she would have been set free instead of killed. If he had ruled to set her free while the others were there to convict her, then his action would have sentenced her to death. In either case he would have caused an outcome contrary to his own judgement. It seems that Jesus may have instead opted to show that the witnesses and jurists did not meet the standards required of their roles.
By the time of Jesus, one execution by a Jewish court in a span of 70 years was considered high.
Under Jewish Law it was the responsibility of the two witnesses required for a conviction also act as the executioners. Only one of the witnesses against her could cast the first stone.
If the witnesses were found to be false (even on minor issues not directly relating to the crime), then they were to be given whatever punishment that the accused would be given if convicted.
According to the Oral Law of the Pharisees, the witnesses are considered false unless they could both confirm not only that the other was also there to witness the crime, but that they warned the accused of the wrongness of her action before she committed it and then stayed around to see the whole deed. They had to warn her of the punishment and hear her acknowledge it within seconds of committing the crime. Speech impediments and difficulty hearing invalidated a witness, as they cast doubt on whether the accused understood the warning.
Only adult Jewish men with legitimate professions who were familiar with both the oral and written torah and were known to keep the law could be witnesses.
The Oral Law required only allowed capital punishment after conviction by a jury of at least 23 adult Jewish men who know and keep both the written and oral law. They needed more than a simple majority to convict, but since unanimous ruling was seen as a sign of bribery or group-think a lack of dissent resulted in a mistrial. If Jesus had agreed to kill her, then the decision would have been unanimous and she would have been set free instead of killed. If he had ruled to set her free while the others were there to convict her, then his action would have sentenced her to death. In either case he would have caused an outcome contrary to his own judgement. It seems that Jesus may have instead opted to show that the witnesses and jurists did not meet the standards required of their roles.
By the time of Jesus, one execution by a Jewish court in a span of 70 years was considered high.
Similar threads
