God supports stoning in the OT yet Jesus rebukes it in John 8 [Archive]

John Goddard

February 6th 2009, 10:34 AM

It's hard for a clear answer why God of the ot was a bit cruel and then God in the NT is somewhat so forgiving.

God in the old testament allowed killing children and (the main topic) in the mosainic laws, he ordered moses to stone certain people who were apparently sinning.

Now i read in John 8, that a woman was about to be put to death for commiting adultery, just as it was told in the laws of Moses. I'm seriously confused since i believe God to be a loving God. I just don't understand why he killed some non-jewish people and ordered stoning while in the NT he rebukes the stoners?

Jesus didn't abolish the punishment to be rendered by other men, it still stands. What he did was reinforce the qualification for it. In that, if you are guilty of sin yourself, then you are not qualified to render punishment for sin against anyone else, otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

Of course as ultimate Judge he had power to forgive sin on the spot, with repentance. With no repentance, he also had power to destroy, which is what happened to Jerusalem.

So God didn't really turn into an old softy with the NT, rather, stipulations of Torah were simply clarified, and modified for Jews in terms of prayer and repentance being sufficient without animal sacrifice. Which was necessary given that there is no more Temple now to offer it.

barnasha

February 6th 2009, 03:00 PM

Of course as ultimate Judge he had power to forgive sin on the spot, with repentance. With no repentance, he also had power to destroy, which is what happened to Jerusalem.

So God didn't really turn into an old softy with the NT, rather, stipulations of Torah were simply clarified, and modified for Jews in terms of prayer and repentance being sufficient without animal sacrifice. Which was necessary given that there is no more Temple now to offer it.

Jesus said that human beings (not Jesus) "have the power" to forgive sins "on Earth" (Mark 2:10)

John Goddard

February 6th 2009, 04:02 PM

Jesus said that human beings (not Jesus) "have the power" to forgive sins "on Earth" (Mark 2:10)

The verse you cite talks about Jesus. John 5:22 says Jesus is the judge.

Mark 2:10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

As for other verses telling people to go forgive sins, it's debatable as to whether he gave power of judgment over others to disciples, or if he was saying to simply forgive others of sins they do to you.

barnasha

February 6th 2009, 04:48 PM

The verse you cite talks about Jesus
No, it talks about "the son of man". check

John Goddard

February 6th 2009, 04:52 PM

No, it talks about "the son of man". check

Which is Jesus.

John 5
[26] For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
[27] And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

TheMan

February 7th 2009, 10:34 AM

Jesus didn't abolish the punishment to be rendered by other men, it still stands. What he did was reinforce the qualification for it. In that, if you are guilty of sin yourself, then you are not qualified to render punishment for sin against anyone else, otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

Of course as ultimate Judge he had power to forgive sin on the spot, with repentance. With no repentance, he also had power to destroy, which is what happened to Jerusalem.

So God didn't really turn into an old softy with the NT, rather, stipulations of Torah were simply clarified, and modified for Jews in terms of prayer and repentance being sufficient without animal sacrifice. Which was necessary given that there is no more Temple now to offer it.

That's what i don't get. In the OT, God did suggest stoning on certain people even Adultry was said to be worthy of death. Most of those stipulations where made by God, the adultress should be stoned.

That's what's hard to understand, why was God so wrathful in the OT but so forgiving in the NT.

John Goddard

February 7th 2009, 10:50 AM

That's what i don't get. In the OT, God did suggest stoning on certain people even Adultry was said to be worthy of death. Most of those stipulations where made by God, the adultress should be stoned.

That's what's hard to understand, why was God so wrathful in the OT but so forgiving in the NT.

NT Revelation is full of God's wrath.

But anyway, Torah was there in part to weed out undesirables, both within Israel and among surrounding heathen nations against Israel. The whole idea was to get Israel established and on its feet so it could be in a position to produce Messiah. Then Messiah would be the judge of men.

Until then, men had to judge each other, which included killing sinners. Problem is they were being hypocrites about it, killing sinners who were caught but not submitting themselves for the same punishment for their own secret sins. So this is what Jesus was against.

He basically said, "Ok observe Torah and stone her. But you better make sure you aren't a sinner yourself and thus a hypocrite if you do." So he wasn't against Torah, but against abuse of it.

In my view, the reason he didn't stone her himself, even though he would have been justified since he was without sin, is because he was acting as a prophet during his ministry, where physical death was parallel to spiritual death and going to Hell.

He was showing people you don't have to go to Hell and the Second Death, you can be forgiven by him instead, IF you repent.

But notice he didn't lift the punishment of physical death on everyone just yet, we all still have to die for Adam's sin, regardless of being forgiven for your own sins. That comes later.

So it's not that Jesus was being all-forgiving, since he still allows us to die and he sent wrath on Jerusalem and will apparently send more on the earth when he returns, per Revelation. But he was teaching us something about the system of forgiveness ultimately available, if you repent of sin.

Little Shepherd

February 7th 2009, 04:14 PM

That's what i don't get. In the OT, God did suggest stoning on certain people even Adultry was said to be worthy of death. Most of those stipulations where made by God, the adultress should be stoned.
Ancient law codes, including that of ancient Israel, operated on a ransom model. In a ransom model, a fee determined by the tribunal -- a ransom -- could be paid in place of the ascribed punishment, with the punishment mentioned simply there to drive home the point of the severity of the offense. The ransom would have been assumed by the Israelites due to their cultural context, and the fact that at least one crime (premeditated murder) specifically disallows a ransom -- something that wouldn't have even needed to be mentioned if the ransom model wasn't in effect -- further supports that Israel's law did in fact operate on a ransom model. So the OT law ends up sounding a lot harsher than it actually was because of modern man's cultural cluelessness concerning ancient law codes.
That's what's hard to understand, why was God so wrathful in the OT but so forgiving in the NT.
Considering the judgment Jesus promised to Israel in the Olivet Discourse(whether or not you believe it's already come to pass -- I do) and the clear prophecies of harsh judgment in Revelation, I'd like to know where you even get this. Jesus is way harsh. And some of the far end-times stuff can't be avoided by simply moving away no matter how much advance warning is given, unlike much of the stuff in the OT where the people were given many years of warnings and the chance to move out of the danger zone.

hedrick

February 7th 2009, 08:37 PM

There are just too many differences between what we see in the early OT and in Jesus to explain away. I'd say that either people misunderstood what God intended, or God revealed himself progressively because people weren't ready to understand. They got justice, but it took longer to get mercy. It's not OT vs NT. The later prophets' ideas are consistent with Jesus': rather than conquering the heathen, Israel was to become the light for the nations.

Little Shepherd

February 8th 2009, 12:24 AM

There are just too many differences between what we see in the early OT and in Jesus to explain away.
Like what?
I'd say that either people misunderstood what God intended, or God revealed himself progressively because people weren't ready to understand.
I believe in progressive revelation. The OT laws both raised Israel above the surrounding nations and pointed to something even greater yet to come.
They got justice, but it took longer to get mercy.
Mercy seems to be present from pretty much the beginning of Genesis. :shrug:
It's not OT vs NT. The later prophets' ideas are consistent with Jesus': rather than conquering the heathen, Israel was to become the light for the nations.
The entirety of the Tanak, including the Torah, seems pretty consistent with Jesus as far as I can see. But then I don't have rainbow-colored Jesus goggles enabling me to overlook the passages in the NT that paint Jesus clearly as a God of justice and vengeance as well as mercy.

Bernie

February 8th 2009, 10:45 AM

DesertBerean

February 8th 2009, 01:09 PM

It's hard for a clear answer why God of the ot was a bit cruel and then God in the NT is somewhat so forgiving.

God in the old testament allowed killing children and (the main topic) in the mosainic laws, he ordered moses to stone certain people who were apparently sinning.

Now i read in John 8, that a woman was about to be put to death for commiting adultery, just as it was told in the laws of Moses. I'm seriously confused since i believe God to be a loving God. I just don't understand why he killed some non-jewish people and ordered stoning while in the NT he rebukes the stoners? The Law required that both parties in adultery be brought for judgment. Here only the woman was presented, and by that one action alone her accusers betrayed both the letter and the spirit of the Law. I believe Jesus wanted to point out their hypocrisy. My two cents worth anyway. :smile:

In the OT, God was dealing with Israel as a nation; but what do you suppose he thought about David's sin? Once God through Nathan exposed David's adultery, David and Bathsheba were subject to the penalty of stoning as required by God's Law. But they were not. What do you suppose that shows about God's attitude towards stoning?

smaneck

February 9th 2009, 02:06 AM

It's hard for a clear answer why God of the ot was a bit cruel and then God in the NT is somewhat so forgiving.

Yet all the hell, fire and brimstone stuff is found in the New Testament, not the Old.

smaneck

February 9th 2009, 02:07 AM

The Pharisees had no right to order her stoned. She was never brought to trial before the judges.

How do you know that?

smaneck

February 9th 2009, 02:10 AM

smaneck

February 9th 2009, 02:12 AM

No, it talks about "the son of man". check

Dear Barmasha,

The reference to the Son of Man is a reference to an apocalyptic figure in the Book of Daniel who by Jesus' time had come to be associated with the Messiah.

But Jesus does state that the *church* is empowered to forgive sins.

warmest, Susan

smaneck

February 9th 2009, 02:16 AM

Ancient law codes, including that of ancient Israel, operated on a ransom model. In a ransom model, a fee determined by the tribunal -- a ransom -- could be paid in place of the ascribed punishment, with the punishment mentioned simply there to drive home the point of the severity of the offense..

I've never heard of there being a ransom for the sin of adultery, but Islam dealt with that issue by requiring four witnesses, something one is highly unlikely to have in cases of adultery.

smaneck

February 9th 2009, 02:18 AM

There are just too many differences between what we see in the early OT and in Jesus to explain away. I'd say that either people misunderstood what God intended, or God revealed himself progressively because people weren't ready to understand.

I would agree with that, however people had their limitations when it came to understanding God's purposes two thousand years ago as well. If we take the idea of progressive revelation seriously, then as the Baha'i Faith teaches, we should accept that revelation never ends.

smaneck

February 9th 2009, 02:21 AM

In the OT, God was dealing with Israel as a nation; but what do you suppose he thought about David's sin? Once God through Nathan exposed David's adultery, David and Bathsheba were subject to the penalty of stoning as required by God's Law. But they were not. What do you suppose that shows about God's attitude towards stoning?

That kings are above the law? :wink:

John Goddard

February 9th 2009, 02:32 AM

But that qualification was never in the Torah to reinforce.

Sure it is.

Deuteronomy 1:16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

So if you judge everyone else for their sins, but not judge yourself for your sins, you aren't judging EVERY man righteously, and render yourself a hypocrite.

Which all boils down to the Golden Rule, it's pretty much a common sense matter, and an Oral Torah of clarification on how to apply Written Torah regarding punishment of others:

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

If you give punishment to someone else for their sins, but not submit yourself for punishment having your own sins, then you are favoring yourself more than your neighbor.

smaneck

February 10th 2009, 01:05 AM

Sure it is.

Deuteronomy 1:16 And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.

So if you judge everyone else for their sins, but not judge yourself for your sins, you aren't judging EVERY man righteously, and render yourself a hypocrite.

That's a stretch, John. The passage says to make judgments *between* men. That has nothing to do with judging your own sin.

John Goddard

February 10th 2009, 01:22 AM

That's a stretch, John. The passage says to make judgments *between* men. That has nothing to do with judging your own sin.

It does if your harm to another man remains a secret, like stealing for example, but you punish others for the same crimes.

Maybe this famous example regarding God's anger over David's hypocrisy will also help illustrate that hypocrisy went against God in the Tanach:

2 Samuel 12:5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:
...
2 Samuel 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
...
2 Samuel 12:12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

2 Samuel 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

-----------------

And some Jewish commentary:

...Along the same lines, he criticizes vigorously those who sin in secret, yet flaunt public acts of righteousness so that no one would suspect them of wrongdoing. It is recommended (Yoma 86b; Midrash Tehillim 52) that hypocrites be exposed publicly in order to prevent profanation of Hashems Name: If a hypocrite, someone thought by the public to be righteous, were to suffer misfortune because of his secret sins, people might accuse Hashem of injustice. Thus, hypocrisy must be disclosed. (http://www.ou.org/torah/ti/5763/tazria63.htm)

So maybe you are starting to see that the hypocrisy of judging others while not judging yourself was never an ok thing in the Tanach. If not, can't help you further.

smaneck

February 10th 2009, 09:40 AM

So maybe you are starting to see that the hypocrisy of judging others while not judging yourself was never an ok thing in the Tanach. If not, can't help you further.

Dear John,

What is wrong here is the hypocrisy of *committing* such sins while serving in a position of authority, not whether or not one judges oneself for such sins. But the fact that David lost his child because of his affair with Bethsheba is interesting. Is causing an innocent baby to die preferrable to stoning?

warmest, Susan

John Goddard

February 10th 2009, 11:38 AM

Dear John,

What is wrong here is the hypocrisy of *committing* such sins while serving in a position of authority, not whether or not one judges oneself for such sins.

Human judges may sin at some point. What is wrong is not coming clean about it and continuing to hold yourself up in a position of righteousness over other men.

So as may have been the case with the Pericope Adulterae, if you are going to stone some woman for adultery when you've done the same thing in secret and let your own self off the hook, what kind of a righteous judge is that?

It's just common sense that this would be dishonest, hypocritical, and wrong, don't you think? Even if you can't personally make a connection to what is said about it in the Tanach.

But the fact that David lost his child because of his affair with Bethsheba is interesting. Is causing an innocent baby to die preferrable to stoning?

warmest, Susan

In my view God had bigger and better plans for the child, to resurrect the him into the womb of Mary to be Jesus. But that's another story and can of worms for another thread.

smaneck

February 10th 2009, 11:49 AM

Human judges may sin at some point. What is wrong is not coming clean about it and continuing to hold yourself up in a position of righteousness over other men.

That's a noble idea John, the question is whether such a concept is found in the Tanak? The passages you cited condemn the hypocrisy of the sin itself not the lack of repentance afterwards. In other words, I think you are projecting a Christian idea back on the OT where it isn't found.

It's just common sense that this would be dishonest, hypocritical, and wrong, don't you think? Even if you can't personally make a connection to what is said about it in the Tanach.

A lot of things that are common sense to you and me, were not necessarily so for the ancients. The task of the historian is to be able to read a text as the ancients would have read it rather than project our own values and ethics on it.

In my view God had bigger and better plans for the child, to resurrect the him into the womb of Mary to be Jesus. But that's another story and can of worms for another thread.

Whoah, that is a can of worms. Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus is the son of David and Bethsheba?

John Goddard

February 10th 2009, 12:20 PM

That's a noble idea John, the question is whether such a concept is found in the Tanak?

How can you judge righteously between men if you show favoritism to yourself and exclude yourself from judgment for the same sins you condemn others for? It is self-explanatory.

Whoah, that is a can of worms. Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus is the son of David and Bethsheba?

Yeah that's my belief.

themuzicman

February 10th 2009, 04:12 PM

That part of John was not in the original text. Most later translations include it for historical purposes, but make a note that it was not part of the original, but added later.

Michael

barnasha

February 10th 2009, 05:28 PM

Yet all the hell, fire and brimstone stuff is found in the New Testament, not the Old.
A lot of that is in Revelations, which some people forget is basically a dream.

smaneck

February 14th 2009, 05:47 PM

A lot of that is in Revelations, which some people forget is basically a dream.

It's in some of Jesus' preaching as well where it is found in passages such as this:

9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (Mark)

The word translated as 'hell' here is Gehenna. Gehenna was a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem which the Jews regarded as cursed because the Canaanites used to sacrifice their babies there. Chemicals from the garbage would often combust and therefore there were always fires burning in Gehenna. The Qur'anic word for hell, Jahannam is a direct cognate to the Hebrew Gehenna.

Heterodoxus

February 28th 2009, 03:30 PM

TheMan wrote: That's what i don't get. In the OT, God did suggest stoning on certain people even Adultry was said to be worthy of death. Most of those stipulations where made by God, the adultress should be stoned.

That's what's hard to understand, why was God so wrathful in the OT but so forgiving in the NT[?]Perhaps it's because, in the OT, one sees the nature and character of the God of Judaism, Judeo-Christianity, and Islam (YHVH-Jehovah-Allah). And, in the NT, one discerns the character and nature of the entity to whom Jesus frequently referred to as "Father"?

In the light of the observable differences between the two, either:

1) the OT "God" has a split or multiple personalities; or,

2) the Christianized notions of God and Father are not the same. :shrug:

smaneck

March 6th 2009, 09:04 PM

[
1) the OT "God" has a split or multiple personalities; or,

I think the multiple personalities are in the post-Biblical Christianity. It's called the Trinity. :wink:

Little Shepherd

March 6th 2009, 10:24 PM

I think the multiple personalities are in the post-Biblical Christianity. It's called the Trinity. :wink:
That you would even say that shows that you have no idea what the Trinity actually entails.

Shadow Phoenix

March 6th 2009, 10:31 PM

Sigh. Does anybody consider that maybe since Israel was a theocratic nation meant to represent the holiness of God to a pagan world that maybe, just maybe, they would take sin seriously?

And yes, it is taken just as much seriously in the NT if not more so.

And in fact, mercy is a prevalent theme in the OT as well. In fact, that is actually the point of the flood story.

smaneck

March 7th 2009, 01:33 PM

That you would even say that shows that you have no idea what the Trinity actually entails.

A Christian doctrine stating that God exists as three persons.

Shadow Phoenix

March 7th 2009, 01:37 PM

A Christian doctrine stating that God exists as three persons.

Got the definition right.

Got the concept entirely wrong.

Love the implicit idea also that the Geek did not know what is meant by "The doctrine of the Trinity."

Xmansmommy

March 7th 2009, 01:40 PM

It's hard for a clear answer why God of the ot was a bit cruel and then God in the NT is somewhat so forgiving.

God in the old testament allowed killing children and (the main topic) in the mosainic laws, he ordered moses to stone certain people who were apparently sinning.

Now i read in John 8, that a woman was about to be put to death for commiting adultery, just as it was told in the laws of Moses. I'm seriously confused since i believe God to be a loving God. I just don't understand why he killed some non-jewish people and ordered stoning while in the NT he rebukes the stoners?

I believe (for several reasons) that much of the OT commands were attributed to God but were not God's intentions or instructions. Jesus addresses one of those examples regarding divorce. God allowed things in the OT because of the hardness of the hearts of men. I think He still does today but at least we have a better concept of what God desires through the teachings of Jesus in the NT. He did reveal what God his Father looked like. And He is far more merciful than the OT laws seem to indicate.

Just my thoughts.

Hamster

March 7th 2009, 02:09 PM

I think the multiple personalities are in the post-Biblical Christianity. It's called the Trinity. :wink:

I'd say the Bahai deity is more a victim of multiple personality disorder. The trinity at least exists in perfect harmony, the Bahai deity inspires wildly contradictory things with each new generation of "prophet."

smaneck

March 7th 2009, 03:48 PM

I'd say the Bahai deity is more a victim of multiple personality disorder. The trinity at least exists in perfect harmony, the Bahai deity inspires wildly contradictory things with each new generation of "prophet."

I don't think there is anymore disharmony between the Baha'i revelation and those of the past, than there is between the New Testament and the Old. Baha'is didn't invent the term Progressive Revelation, we borrowed it from Christian theologians.

Shadow Phoenix

March 9th 2009, 09:21 PM

I don't think there is anymore disharmony between the Baha'i revelation and those of the past, than there is between the New Testament and the Old. Baha'is didn't invent the term Progressive Revelation, we borrowed it from Christian theologians.

Could you tell me what you think we mean by progressive revelation?

smaneck

March 10th 2009, 12:08 AM

Could you tell me what you think we mean by progressive revelation?

That depends on which Christian you're talking to. The term was first coined in the 19th century to explain the differences between God's activity in the Old Testament versus the New.
The form of progressive revelation most popular among Evangelicals today would be Dispensationalism. But you can find the conception among liberals as well. Here are two websites describing the concept from both ends of the spectrum:

http://progressiverevelation.blogspot.com/
http://www.endtimes.org/progressive.html

Shadow Phoenix

March 10th 2009, 06:04 PM

That depends on which Christian you're talking to. The term was first coined in the 19th century to explain the differences between God's activity in the Old Testament versus the New.
The form of progressive revelation most popular among Evangelicals today would be Dispensationalism. But you can find the conception among liberals as well. Here are two websites describing the concept from both ends of the spectrum:

http://progressiverevelation.blogspot.com/
http://www.endtimes.org/progressive.html

So let me see. You used a term and then you tell me that term can have to opposing meanings?

btw, I believe in progressive revelation and I am not a dispie in any way.

I'm curious then what you mean by progressive revelation.

smaneck

March 11th 2009, 10:22 PM

So let me see. You used a term and then you tell me that term can have to opposing meanings?

I wouldn't say 'opposing meanings' though the concept seems to be used for different purposes.

I'm curious then what you mean by progressive revelation.

When Baha'is used the term they mean that God has been gradually enfolding His purpose to humanity in history in accordance with our needs and capacities. Baha'is see this as a continual process.

Shadow Phoenix

March 12th 2009, 03:23 PM

I wouldn't say 'opposing meanings' though the concept seems to be used for different purposes.

You speak of both ends of the spectrum. Things on both ends are normally opposed.

When Baha'is used the term they mean that God has been gradually enfolding His purpose to humanity in history in accordance with our needs and capacities. Baha'is see this as a continual process.

If you simply mean new information is revealed, I don't see the problem. The Jews would have held to that as there were prophets that came after Moses.

The question is, what is progressive about it?

smaneck

March 23rd 2009, 12:27 AM

Y
If you simply mean new information is revealed, I don't see the problem. The Jews would have held to that as there were prophets that came after Moses.

The question is, what is progressive about it?

If new things are revealed, then its progress.

Alan3838

March 23rd 2009, 02:29 AM

We are no longer condemned (judged) by the law. The point of the woman caught in adultery was that all of them, accuser and accused were guilty of sin, the very act of forgiveness was through and by Christ. He fulfilled the law and took our punishment. Just an FYI. In the OT law you could not stone a person if you were guilty of the same sin, not guilty of sin.

barnasha

March 23rd 2009, 03:38 PM

Does anything in the old testament forbid mercy?

Little Shepherd

March 23rd 2009, 05:11 PM

Does anything in the old testament forbid mercy?
Go back to post #11 in which I explain the ransom model that was common to ANE law codes, including that of Israel. Only certain specific sins/crimes -- premeditated murder, for one -- were exempted from the ransom.

RBerman

March 23rd 2009, 05:13 PM

Does anything in the old testament forbid mercy?
There are some notable examples of judicial mercy in the OT. Joseph didn't throw his brothers in prison. (Well, just one of them, and not for long.) David wasn't dethroned for Uriah's murder. At times mercy is the right answer, and at times justice is the right answer.

Sparko

March 23rd 2009, 05:49 PM

John Goddard

March 23rd 2009, 06:31 PM

Under Roman Law, the Jews were not allowed to pass the death penalty themselves any longer. They had to judge a person, then send them to the Romans to be tried and executed. This is what they did with Jesus when they wanted to kill him.

So if they were attempting to stone this woman it would be against the law for them to do so. They obviously were just seeing what Jesus would say. If he said "stone her" then they could get him for sedition against the Roman Government.

St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom among others argue that Jews could not execute Jesus simply because it was during the Passover, and others say that Jewish authorities already had proper powers from Rome to execute. This is supported by John 18:28 and by Herod's execution of John the Baptist.

If so then it would seem more likely that Jews were looking for Jesus to excuse adultery so they could call him a lawbreaker. Jesus avoided this by pointing the Law right back at them for their own sins.

Sparko

March 23rd 2009, 06:36 PM

St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom among others argue that Jews could not execute Jesus simply because it was during the Passover, and others say that Jewish authorities already had proper powers from Rome to execute. This is supported by John 18:28 and by Herod's execution of John the Baptist.

If so then it would seem more likely that Jews were looking for Jesus to excuse adultery so they could call him a lawbreaker. Jesus avoided this by pointing the Law right back at them for their own sins.

Herod didn't try John the Baptist at court. he murdered him. It was not a legal execution.

The Jews could judge their own but they could not execute their own.

John Goddard

March 23rd 2009, 08:46 PM

Herod didn't try John the Baptist at court. he murdered him. It was not a legal execution.

The Jews could judge their own but they could not execute their own.

Where does it say John's execution was illegal?

For example, this wiki entry his says they could execute as long as they had authority from Rome:

Herod arrested them, brought them to court, and sentenced them. Augustus approved the death penalty for Antipater. Herod then executed his son, and again changed his will: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great)

This here too from the Bible:

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

So here are two bits that say it was legal for Jews to execute. Therefore it seems the reason they couldn't do it with Jesus was not one of Roman Law, but of Jewish Law due to the Passover prohibition against such activities.

Sparko

March 23rd 2009, 08:51 PM

Where does it say John's execution was illegal?

For example, this wiki entry his says they could execute as long as they had authority from Rome:

Herod arrested them, brought them to court, and sentenced them. Augustus approved the death penalty for Antipater. Herod then executed his son, and again changed his will: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great)

This here too from the Bible:

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

So here are two bits that say it was legal for Jews to execute. Therefore it seems the reason they couldn't do it with Jesus was not one of Roman Law, but of Jewish Law due to the Passover prohibition against such activities.

Jews would never crucify someone. that was a roman punishment. Jews stoned people to death. They didn't behead people in execution either. Herod was a rogue king. He didn't follow the Law. He had John executed on a whim from his daughter who wanted his head for a birthday present. Herod had all of the babies executed in Bethlehem. There was no trial for John or those babies.

Shadow Phoenix

March 23rd 2009, 08:57 PM

If new things are revealed, then its progress.

What would be the relationship of the new to the old?

John Goddard

March 23rd 2009, 11:50 PM

Jews would never crucify someone. that was a roman punishment. Jews stoned people to death. They didn't behead people in execution either. Herod was a rogue king. He didn't follow the Law. He had John executed on a whim from his daughter who wanted his head for a birthday present. Herod had all of the babies executed in Bethlehem. There was no trial for John or those babies.

Here's a good book (http://books.google.com/books?id=EdbdQ-5fMr0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA33,M1) that addresses some of the myths about Jewish beheading and crucifixion.

Herodians were installed by Augustus and remained in power after John and Slaughter of the Innocents. I've never seen any biblical or historical evidence they didn't have Rome's permission.

That assumption is usually based on John 18:31 but fairly refuted by John 18:28 and John 19:6, their prohibition against judicial activity resting on Passover rather than Roman concerns.

LambofElohim

March 24th 2009, 06:25 PM

Greetings,

First I would like to commend ThelogyWeb for not just banning someone from their site and having an open mind at least enough to put those threads that might offend someone in specialized forums.

What is unorthodox anyways? Something that does not meet up to the standards about "God", "the LORD", "Jesus Christ" and what has become the King James Version bible set by men over 8,000 years ago? What made these men who basically were third graders dictate what is and not The Truth.

The Truth is like a man traveling on a road for days just to end up in the same place he started from. When the man realized he was at the same place he started from he exclaimed, "You've got to be kidding me!" Of course the road was a giant circle. Man has been traveling in a huge circle and passed the same place over and over again without ever looking up at the scenery to see that they had the first time. They have been satisfied with what they believe to be the truth by the thoughts of the imaginations of their hearts.

To answer this thread quickly and to the point now. The reason is because it wasn't "God" commanding man in the Laws of Moses to stone someone it was the devil that just happened to be "the LORD" or YeHeVeH they were worshiping by obeying his laws that were added by him to "God's" Twelve Decrees. "God" Himself in the person of the flesh of "Jesus Christ" by way of doctrine and actions tried to tell them that the Laws of Moses they were following after were from man and the devil. They refused to acknowledge a whole other "God" by way of believing that He was His own Son by knowing what the words, "I and My Father are One" meant. Thought I would clear this long time contradiction up instead of rationalizing, theorizing and telling stories as man and the church have done.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

Shadow Phoenix

March 24th 2009, 06:32 PM

Greetings,

First I would like to commend ThelogyWeb for not just banning someone from their site and having an open mind at least enough to put those threads that might offend someone in specialized forums.

What is unorthodox anyways? Something that does not meet up to the standards about "God", "the LORD", "Jesus Christ" and what has become the King James Version bible set by men over 8,000 years ago? What made these men who basically were third graders dictate what is and not The Truth.

The Truth is like a man traveling on a road for days just to end up in the same place he started from. When the man realized he was at the same place he started from he exclaimed, "You've got to be kidding me!" Of course the road was a giant circle. Man has been traveling in a huge circle and passed the same place over and over again without ever looking up at the scenery to see that they had the first time. They have been satisfied with what they believe to be the truth by the thoughts of the imaginations of their hearts.

To answer this thread quickly and to the point now. The reason is because it wasn't "God" commanding man in the Laws of Moses to stone someone it was the devil that just happened to be "the LORD" or YeHeVeH they were worshiping by obeying his laws that were added by him to "God's" Twelve Decrees. "God" Himself in the person of the flesh of "Jesus Christ" by way of doctrine and actions tried to tell them that the Laws of Moses they were following after were from man and the devil. They refused to acknowledge a whole other "God" by way of believing that He was His own Son by the words, "I and My Father are One" meant. Thought I would clear this long time contradiction up instead of rationalizing, theorizing and telling stories as man and the church have done.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

I'm curious how a person can be his own son and how the devil was capable of flooding the world.

Johnny MacManky

March 24th 2009, 07:25 PM

I'm curious how a person can be his own son and how the devil was capable of flooding the world.

Ain't ya been reading your Timothy Freake recently?

LambofElohim

March 25th 2009, 04:21 AM

Greetings,

How can "God" be His own Son? You well underestimate the power of The Word. In Genesis 1"God" speaks forth everything from nothing (The Word) by saying, "Let there be", "Let the" or Let us" and it just appears and it was so. If "God" can do that then he Himself can become flesh and walk this earth. He did, but could not do it and say he was "God", but he could say He was His Son and did.

As for the devil flooding the earth? In Genesis 2:5 it is written, "that the LORD God" had not caused it to rain yet." This states that he had the power to make it rain as man just doesn't see it was not "God". So yes the devil YeHeVeH did flood the earth. Why? Because he had corrupted it with flesh that he formed from the ground and "God" didn't care for it too much.

"God" made the devil destroy the flesh upon the earth and "God" saved one saved one man from the descendants of His Adam, male and female He spoke forth into being..Noah, to restart mankind with his wife, three sons and fifty plus wives each, but the devil had his eye on Noah and knew he eventually would mess up and he did. How? By not being able to discern between the voice of "God" Genesis 8 and the devil ("the LORD") Genesis 9 and by burning animal carcasses upon a pile of rocks creating a horrid smell that attracted him to it. When the devil saw this it pleased him and he knew that this would become a ritual that he could get man to perform to him making them think it was to "God".

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

"Oh you're missing the God...missing the God...missing the God of Jesus Christ!"

Shadow Phoenix

March 25th 2009, 06:27 PM

Greetings,

How can "God" be His own Son? You well underestimate the power of The Word. In Genesis 1"God" speaks forth everything from nothing (The Word) by saying, "Let there be", "Let the" or Let us" and it just appears and it was so. If "God" can do that then he Himself can become flesh and walk this earth. He did, but could not do it and say he was "God", but he could say He was His Son and did.

Why could he not do it and say he was God but say that he was his Son? Also, Son describes a relational context between two persons? How can one be one person and have a relationship with a distinct person?

As for the devil flooding the earth? In Genesis 2:5 it is written, "that the LORD God" had not caused it to rain yet." This states that he had the power to make it rain as man just doesn't see it was not "God". So yes the devil YeHeVeH did flood the earth. Why? Because he had corrupted it with flesh that he formed from the ground and "God" didn't care for it too much.

Which is assuming the devil is the supposed creator in the OT. Why should I think such a thing?

"God" made the devil destroy the flesh upon the earth and "God" saved one saved one man from the descendants of His Adam, male and female He spoke forth into being..Noah, to restart mankind with his wife, three sons and fifty plus wives each, but the devil had his eye on Noah and knew he eventually would mess up and he did. How? By not being able to discern between the voice of "God" Genesis 8 and the devil ("the LORD") Genesis 9 and by burning animal carcasses upon a pile of rocks creating a horrid smell that attracted him to it. When the devil saw this it pleased him and he knew that this would become a ritual that he could get man to perform to him making them think it was to "God".

Where in the world are you getting your information from? It is foreign to the text.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

"Oh you're missing the God...missing the God...missing the God of Jesus Christ!"

I worship and serve the Trinity. I am not missing out but growing in grace and knowledge everyday.

LambofElohim

March 26th 2009, 01:45 PM

Greetings,

My information comes directly from "God" Himself by way of the Spirit of Truth. As for it being foreign to the text; no it is only foreign to what man has been brainwashed to believe the text means and represents. Man has deceived themselves by listening to doctrine, teachings, traditions, commandments and beliefs of their forefathers and never questioning them.

"God" as His own Son had to speak on behalf of both Father and Son. If He said He was "God" they would have thought just as man does now about me that He was crazy or even as they say over and over , "he has the devil in him to say such things". So "God" as the Father spoke to saying He was the Son, but also gave hints that He was more. He had to try to separate them to get them to see there was a whole other "God" they never worshiped and were performing rituals to Him in vain.

No the devil did not create anything, but he did form things out of "God's" earth. I don't want to keep repeating myself, but I had to repeatedly go through the first three chapters over 5,000 times to finally be shown most all of its True meaning. That is the thing with The Truth. I have to repeat myself over and over, thread after thread to get it into man's thick skulls that THEY ARE WRONG! There is nothing to else to say until you get the beginning right there is no need to continue and those who have their nose in the New Testament are more lost than those who have never known anything about the bible.

It is kind of like doing things in steps. Step one: Get the first three chapters of Genesis right. Step two: Get the rest of Genesis 4-8 right. Then you will see, hear and understand that the rest of the Old Testament are scriptures all about what the devil continues to do all throughout; deceive man by signs and wonders into believing he is "God". Even then in order to go into the New Testament it must be read in proper sequence: John, Luke, Matthew then Mark and maybe you will begin to understand The Truth about that also.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

"Oh fools and slow of heart to believe all that man thinks that the scriptures have said; for Christ ought not to have suffered to enter into His glory"

RBerman

March 26th 2009, 05:16 PM

My information comes directly from "God" Himself by way of the Spirit of Truth.
That being the case, there's not likely to be anything any of us can say to challenge you in your beliefs. Am I right?

LambofElohim

March 26th 2009, 06:38 PM

Greetings,

You can challenge me; you just cannot prove me wrong. In fact no one can, but I can prove them wrong. The question is why does God condone killing in the O.T. and rebukes it in the N.T. as His own Son, Jesus Christ? I answered it plain and clear: It was not God in the O.T. it was the devil as YeHeVeH.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

Aren't you curious as to who the only true God is?

Sparko

March 26th 2009, 06:49 PM

Overlord!

March 26th 2009, 06:55 PM

I just don't understand why he killed some non-jewish people and ordered stoning while in the NT he rebukes the stoners?

It's not the same God.

The God of Jesus is *Our Father*.
Man's maker is not our father.
So, Jesus said, "call no man father".
To those who boasted of human geneology, Jesus told them their father was the devil.
So, the "devil" - whatever that is - is man's maker...made in its own image.
Man's maker is judged/condemned in John 16:11, with or without John's understanding.
This is the "prince" of this world...also the "god" of this world.
Whereas, Jesus tells us to renounce the world, because we are not of it.
Jesus makes it clear that the Kingdom of God is not of this world.
And yet, it is "within".

What happened in the evolotion of X-ianity is those wearing Jewish colored glasses interpreted Jesus in a way that combines *Our Father* with the god-of-this-world.
The god-of-this-world is essentially the god of hebrew genesis lore.
And they did this despite Jesus injunction to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees", and "you cannot serve two masters".
The NT is a compromised composite combining two different things.
*Our Father* is good.
The god-of-this-world is both good and evil.
Not the same.

That's it in a nutshell.

Overlord!

March 26th 2009, 07:03 PM

Then why does God and Satan compete over Job if they are the same person?

Why does the devil give the prophets in the OT the prophesies about Jesus coming in Isaiah and other places?

First, none of the prophecies are really about Jesus...alone.
All prophecies that go to point out an individual Christ are misleading.
Christ is not "here" or "there".
Therefore, Christ in not exclusive to Jesus.
All those who sell exclusivity are anti-christ.
In the gospel of Thomas, Jesus does not exacly pay the prophets much respect.
If the prophets knew so much, why are they all dead?
But Jesus lived in the "living one".
The "living one" is Christ.
And if we do not also live in Christ, we will be dead like the prophets.

Michelle

March 26th 2009, 07:09 PM

wow

Sparko

March 26th 2009, 07:16 PM

wow

yeah. two nuts. or two trolls. not sure yet.

I wonder if aliens fit in anywhere?

RBerman

March 26th 2009, 07:43 PM

You're surprised to see that sort of thing from a guy whose name, religion, and politics are all "Overlord!"?

Michelle

March 26th 2009, 07:46 PM

yeah. two nuts. or two trolls. not sure yet.

I wonder if aliens fit in anywhere?

Dragons?

You're surprised to see that sort of thing from a guy whose name, religion, and politics are all "Overlord!"?

Well, now that you put it that way, I guess not really.

LambofElohim

March 26th 2009, 07:48 PM

Greetings,

I still do not think you quite understand me. Overlord seems to have his reply in a nutshell pretty tightly. He actually is somewhat right, but the "whatever it is" is YeHeVeH that is the devil spoken of as the "god of this world". With Job it isn't "God" that Satan comes before it is Lucifer, the King Demon, YeHeVeH. Lucifer's aim and job is to deceive man into blaming God for everything He does as "the LORD" and Satan's aim here is to get man to actually blame Lucifer as "the LORD" for doing it and not God. In Job it is Satan coming before Lucifer more or less telling him that Job would blame him and curse his name as YeHeVeH or "the LORD" and blame him. Lucifer reiterates by telling Satan that Job will blame "God" and not him, because Job was afraid of "God". Job served Lucifer by sacrificing to him on behalf of his sons he believed were sinning and was afraid of "God" because of all the awful things written about that he would do to those who did not worship him as commanded.

The word "God" is in Job 119 times; in which the word is used in correct association with "God" 13 times. The rest of the times it is used out of context and in vain. These are the times Job uses it. Job says, "Oh that God...Oh that God...oh God this and that, but "God" had nothing to do with Lucifer, YeHeVeH letting Satan wreak havoc on him and his family. To put it short: Lucifer wins, Job blames God and Satan gets to wreak havoc for Lucifer over it all. Neither Lucifer or Satan can enter "God's" presence so it is impossible that it was "God" that Satan went before. Oh this New Wine tastes so good; it was really great to puke out all those old moldy teachings which amount to 0 on the learning scale and -10 on the wisdom scale.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent of John17:3

So not interested in knowing who the only true God is huh? That's right you already know...NOT!

Sparko

March 26th 2009, 07:57 PM

smaneck

March 27th 2009, 12:36 AM

[QUOTE=Alan3838;2620025 In the OT law you could not stone a person if you were guilty of the same sin, not guilty of sin.[/QUOTE]

Where does it say that?

smaneck

March 27th 2009, 12:38 AM

Under Roman Law, the Jews were not allowed to pass the death penalty themselves any longer.

Then how was Stephen stoned?

The Talmud has numerous instances of the Sanhedrin imposing the death penalty during Roman Rule. Jesus wasn't executed by the Sanhedrin because He was convicted of treason, not blasphemy.

smaneck

March 27th 2009, 12:42 AM

What would be the relationship of the new to the old?

I don't understand your question.

smaneck

March 27th 2009, 12:47 AM

Greetings,

My information comes directly from "God" Himself by way of the Spirit of Truth.

Mani?

Obsidian

March 27th 2009, 01:15 AM

MY GOODNESS GRACIOUS, the spirit of Marcion the heretic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion) cereinly lives on today! I can barely believe how much of a magnet this message board is for modern Gnostic sympathizers.

Mr. Lamb, I hate to break it to you, but you have embraced a minor variant of Gnosticism, a heresy which the Church did its absolute best to stamp out about 1700 years ago. Unfortunately, we couldn't get rid of it completely. Suffice it to say...You simply can't just believe any old "vision" that comes into your mind:

Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

You are either 1) experiencing mental illness, 2) taking drugs, or most likely 3) communicating with demons. Actually, it's possible you have experienced some combination of these factors. I know it's hard to accept that the beings you accept to be divine might actually be demonic, but the Bible clearly commands us to "test the spirits."

When Jesus said that he came to "fulfill" the law, not to abolish it -- what do you think he meant? Do you think he was fulfilling a law of Satan? Both Moses and Elijah appeared next to Jesus during the Transfiguration: Do you really think Moses was a satanist? Let's get real.

And John Goddard -- Your theology is flawed. Herod was a Roman puppet. Of course he had the authority to execute criminals, or anyone else that he felt like killing.

Just imagine what the Jews would have done if your interpretation were correct: They would have found anyone who spoke favorably of Rome, and stoned them for "idolatry" or any other trumped-up charge. Of COURSE a conquered people may not impose death sentences. Do you think the Empire was just plain stupid?

And I couldn't care less what Augustine's or Chrysostom's interpretation was. Those men were not first century Jews. Besides, they obviously didn't read the NT carefully enough, because the Pharisees plainly admit, "We have no right to execute anyone" (John 18:31).

If it were just a matter of Passover, don't you think they could've kept him locked up a few days before killing him? Think critically about what you read, man.

The reason Jesus didn't execute the woman was because criminal penalties for adultery had been effectively abolished -- by the Romans, not by Jesus. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law. If Moses would've stoned the woman under the same circumstances, Jesus would have also. But it wasn't a legal execution. It was a lynching.

Jesus didn't have any more right to kill the woman than we have the right to lynch homosexuals or adulterers in modern society. Those sexual acts are wrong, but they aren't against the law.

It's false to claim that Jesus was anti-death penalty. He actually used violent stories for many of his parables, and as I stated, he claimed that he had no desire to abolish the law. The story in John clearly explains that the Pharisees asked Jesus about the woman in order to "trap" him (John 8:6). Just like with the tax issue, they were trying to pit the Law of Moses against the Law of Caesar. But the Law of Moses wasn't fully operative any longer. God had destroyed the Israelite kingdom for its unfaithfulness. Much to their chagrin, the Jews didn't have complete sovereignty anymore. They couldn't execute adulterers anymore. (Moreover, certain passages in Proverbs and various parts of OT suggest that the Jews never had been very faithful with punishing adultery anyway.) Rome controlled them -- and Rome eventually destroyed them in 70 A.D.

Adrift

March 27th 2009, 01:23 AM

Then how was Stephen stoned?

The Talmud has numerous instances of the Sanhedrin imposing the death penalty during Roman Rule. Jesus wasn't executed by the Sanhedrin because He was convicted of treason, not blasphemy.

I'm also curious about this. I've heard it said a few times on this forum (not just Sparko) that it was illegal for the Jews to carry out their own death sentences in the first century. Its the typical apology I've heard on this forum for the compassion Jesus shows to the woman who committed adultery. I'd like to see the evidence for it, one way or the other though. One of the reasons I love this message forum... always an opportunity to learn.

Adrift

March 27th 2009, 01:28 AM

And John Goddard -- Your theology is flawed. Herod was a Roman puppet. Of course he had the authority to execute criminals, or anyone else that he felt like killing.

Just imagine what the Jews would have done if your interpretation were correct: They would have found anyone who spoke favorably of Rome, and stoned them for "idolatry" or any other trumped-up charge. Of COURSE a conquered people may not impose death sentences. Do you think the Empire was just plain stupid?

And I couldn't care less what Augustine's or Chrysostom's interpretation was. Those men were not first century Jews. Besides, they obviously didn't read the NT carefully enough, because the Pharisees plainly admit, "We have no right to execute anyone" (John 18:31).

If it were just a matter of Passover, don't you think they could've kept him locked up a few days before killing him? Think critically about what you read, man.

The reason Jesus didn't execute the woman was because criminal penalties for adultery had been effectively abolished -- by the Romans, not by Jesus. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law. If Moses would've stoned the woman under the same circumstances, Jesus would have also. But it wasn't a legal execution. It was a lynching.

Jesus didn't have any more right to kill the woman than we have the right to lynch homosexuals or adulterers in modern society. Those sexual acts are wrong, but they aren't against the law.

It's false to claim that Jesus was anti-death penalty. He actually used violent stories for many of his parables, and as I stated, he claimed that he had no desire to abolish the law. The story in John clearly explains that the Pharisees asked Jesus about the woman in order to "trap" him (John 8:6). Just like with the tax issue, they were trying to pit the Law of Moses against the Law of Caesar. But the Law of Moses wasn't fully operative any longer. God had destroyed the Israelite kingdom for its unfaithfulness. Much to their chagrin, the Jews didn't have complete sovereignty anymore. They couldn't execute adulterers anymore. (Moreover, certain passages in Proverbs and various parts of OT suggest that the Jews never had been very faithful with punishing adultery anyway.) Rome controlled them -- and Rome eventually destroyed them in 70 A.D.

Very interesting. What say you Smaneck?

Obsidian

March 27th 2009, 02:00 AM

Here is a link that documents the death penalty situation further:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesustrial.html#jn197

Of course, if you simply take the Bible (John 18:31) literally, you don't have delve into extrabiblical sources. But it's always good when history backs up your understanding.

John Goddard

March 27th 2009, 03:29 AM

And John Goddard -- Your theology is flawed. Herod was a Roman puppet. Of course he had the authority to execute criminals, or anyone else that he felt like killing.

Just imagine what the Jews would have done if your interpretation were correct: They would have found anyone who spoke favorably of Rome, and stoned them for "idolatry" or any other trumped-up charge. Of COURSE a conquered people may not impose death sentences. Do you think the Empire was just plain stupid?

And I couldn't care less what Augustine's or Chrysostom's interpretation was. Those men were not first century Jews. Besides, they obviously didn't read the NT carefully enough, because the Pharisees plainly admit, "We have no right to execute anyone" (John 18:31).

They said:

John 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

The Passover is why they could not execute:

John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

Not because they were prohibited by Roman Law, because here Pilate gives Jews permission to execute Jesus:

John 19:6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

That's what happens when you rely on gossip to define your theology, instead of the Bible. You start to hear stuff enough times, like Jews had no authority to execute, and you start believing it, ignoring what the Bible says.

Sparko

March 27th 2009, 10:37 AM

I'm also curious about this. I've heard it said a few times on this forum (not just Sparko) that it was illegal for the Jews to carry out their own death sentences in the first century. Its the typical apology I've heard on this forum for the compassion Jesus shows to the woman who committed adultery. I'd like to see the evidence for it, one way or the other though. One of the reasons I love this message forum... always an opportunity to learn.

The tektonics article linked above is a good one with reference sources that back up the case that the Jews did not have capital power to execute criminals. And it explains the cases of John the Baptist and Stephen.

Stephen did not get a trial verdict, while he was still testifying they mobbed him and took him outside to stone him, he was "lynched" by vigilantes.

ACTS 6:54 When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." 57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.

Adrift

March 27th 2009, 10:51 AM

The tektonics article linked above is a good one with reference sources that back up the case that the Jews did not have capital power to execute criminals. And it explains the cases of John the Baptist and Stephen.

Stephen did not get a trial verdict, while he was still testifying they mobbed him and took him outside to stone him, he was "lynched" by vigilantes.

ACTS 6:54 When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." 57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.

Interesting. I'll have to check those sources. Thanks.

LambofElohim

March 27th 2009, 12:04 PM

Greetings,

Wow! How many coiled up vipers we have out there and on this thread ready to attack "God's" poor defenseless sheep.

Typical answer from a Paulutian and modern day Pharisee:

You are either 1) experiencing mental illness,

No I have my mental faculties 100% in working order and will pass any test!

2) taking drugs,

The only so-called drug I do is smoke herb: "God" spoke it forth in Gen 1:11 and said eat all you want in Gen 1:28. It doesn't matter even if I didn't because it is there and I cannot be proven wrong! At the time I received the Spirit of Truth I was straight as an arrow; I was just ready to do something that no man really has done as a Christian.

or most likely 3) communicating with demons.

The only time I communicate with demons is when I am tell the devil to get beneath me and call him a slave of a witch or I am speaking to someone possessed with the Holy Ghost.

Actually, it's possible you have experienced some combination of these factors. I know it's hard to accept that the beings you accept to be divine might actually be demonic, but the Bible clearly commands us to "test the spirits."

Oh yes I confess Jesus Christ IS come in the flesh! Isn't that the test????? KJV
oh and I confess BOTH "God" and "Jesus Christ"; Father and Son...isn't that the way to see if someone is antichrist????

When Jesus said that he came to "fulfill" the law, not to abolish it -- what do you think he meant? Do you think he was fulfilling a law of Satan? Both Moses and Elijah appeared next to Jesus during the Transfiguration: Do you really think Moses was a satanist? Let's get real.

First of all "fulfill" here does mean "put and end to", "stop" or "allow to no longer exist". It is man's misinterpretation that thinks otherwise. It was Lucifer's transfiguration as his antichrists Christ the LORD, son of David that Moses and Elijah appeared before...oh by the way...was it 6 days or 8? an YES...Mosed all Israel were luciferians! Altars...sacrificing...killing...DEVILORD!

As for me having the devil my god...HA HA HA HA HA ! Elohim is My God prove he is not the only true "God"! Oh and now to unveil the prize! Elohim is the PRE-Islam-PRE-Mohammed al-Lah! and Jesus Christ is His Son! Gabriel lied!!!!!! Which means He even lied to Zacharias and both Marys.

So what makes Marcion a heretic anyways? The church and their egotistical men professing to be wise becoming fools, because Marcion was on the right track, Jesus Christ came to tell them that it was a whole other "God" who sent Him...and it was! Just because it opposes the church does not mean it is wrong, because the church opposes The Truth!

To quote the words of a Bob Dylan song: "You gotta serve somebody...whether it is the Lord or the devil"...gee what do you do when "God" shows you they are the same thing!

The Brother of the only true Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent of John 17:3
Reverend Carlton

"Oh you're missing the God...missing the God...missing the God of Jesus Christ

Johnny MacManky

March 27th 2009, 01:26 PM

. . .

The only so-called drug I do is smoke herb: . .

So, you're in favour of getting stoned then?

Sparko

March 27th 2009, 01:32 PM

So, you're in favour of getting stoned then?

I'd say he makes a regular practice out of it.

Did anyone else in the OT stone themselves or is this a new phenomenon?

RBerman

March 27th 2009, 02:47 PM

The only so-called drug I do is smoke herb: [/B]
Why am I not surprised? Must be the "good stuff!"

Obsidian

March 27th 2009, 02:48 PM

Oh yes I confess Jesus Christ IS come in the flesh! Isn't that the test?????

People take that verse FAR too literally. Do you really think that anyone who acknowledges Jesus's humanity has the authority to speak for God? Even Arians, Mormons, etc.? Of course not.

The "Did Jesus come in the flesh" question was a direct attack on GNOSTICS, who held theology very similar to yours. They said that the God of the OT was different from Jesus's Father. Most of them also said that Jesus had no human body, but merely appeared to have one. That's why John said to ask if Jesus came in the flesh.

Based on their position that all matter is evil, Gnostic morality was also truly corrupt -- as if yours. They generally condemned marriage because they thought that was too associated with material things. (See 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Most of them were also PACIFISTS for the same reason. Why should anyone lift a forceful finger to protect life if matter is evil? The death penalty promotes lawful behavior and in particular, it deters murder. The death penalty emphasizes human responsibility and if applied consistently, it saves lives. (In a similar way, lengthy prison sentences also save lives, but largescale prisons didn't exist in Moses's time, or in Jesus's.) But Gnostics certainly wouldn't approve of anything as horrible as punishment. Hence, they said the OT God was evil and mean, whereas Jesus is nice and good.

This dichotomy, unfortunately, allows all kinds of pagan morals to infiltrate the church. The reason I say so is because the NT isn't a law code. It was never meant to restate every moral law that Moses laid down. So if we say that God can change, we start looking for new rules based on the NT, but which usually will end up contradicting the OT. In reality, Jesus is the OT God, and God's morality doesn't change.

But Jesus's humanity certainly is not the only question to ask. Even Jews admit that Jesus had a human body.

Jesus fulfilled the law in the sense that he obeyed it to the letter, and then died in our place. Hence, we have no obligation to obey the law for the purpose of getting into heaven. But we still obey it out of love for God. The only parts we don't obey were the ceramonial aspects, such as animal sacrifice and various holidays. (See Colossians 2:16-17)

And by "herb," I'm not sure what drug you're referring to. But I think many kinds of drugs can open you up to demonic involvement, especially if that's what you're looking for. The greek word for "sorcercy" as found in the NT is the same word that we get our word "pharmacy" from. After all, that's why the American Indians used to use marijuana, and it's ultimately why we prohibited the drug. I would advise you to read the Bible more and take less drugs until you've arrived at a more biblical theology.

And John Goddard, the verse you cited doesn't prove anything. It certainly doesn't mention your Passover Theory. At best, it shows that Pilate was authorizing a specific execution. But considering Jesus didn't get killed right after he said that, we can probably assume that Pilate was just trying to dodge responsibility. If this verse ("You take him any crucify him") proved your theory, it would actually prove that Jews had a legal right to crucify people. Is that what you are arguing? Do we have any evidence of Jews crucifying people?

Read the link I posted.

Oh, and in opposing the death penalty (I assume you do), I'd like you to keep in mind the theological company you're keeping: **Points to Mr. Lamb**

Regarding John 8, my lynching interpretation actually makes the most sense. That is, if we're going to start stoning people for sins, outside of the criminal code and without due process, we'll all be susceptible to death. That's why the people that murder gays are so stupid.

LambofElohim

March 27th 2009, 03:22 PM

Greetings,

I knew everyone would focus on the "smoking herb" thing, but no I do not make it a ritual although all I do, I do to the glory of "God" as would My Brother "Jesus Christ". No it really isn't that good of stuff...just usual, but that is not the point. The point is that it does not matter what I do; what matters is that "God" Himself in Genesis 1:1-2:3 proves Himself to be "God" and speak forth His creations and confirm them to be there to the sight; including man, male and female as "one" and call their name Adam a whole day before "the LORD God" does anything.

Man speaks of "Jesus Christ" as already coming in the flesh and that he came in a past tense. The verse in John clearly state present tense as "is come". man took a word and totally changed it to fit their beliefs. "Is" is "is" and "has" is "has" there is no similarity at all. Like saying, "John has a penny"..."John is a penny", My what a nice hat that is"..."My what a nice hat that has"...uh see? Foolishness! Man's doctrine is foolishness. The bible says, this and the bible says that. No the bible only says what man has planted in their own hearts for it to say and nothing more. The bible does not speak and if it did every time someone opened it up it would say, "This book is about everything the the devil does as "the LORD" in the Old Testament on his way of fulfilling Isaiah 12:14-16.

Salvation is only one word away...The Word is Elohim! "That they might know that "thou" hast sent Me"..."That ELOHIM so loved the world that HE gave HIS only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish but have everlasting life." The "He, His and Him are referring specifically to "God" as every time a sentence begins with a noun all pronouns within that sentence refer to that noun even if another noun is present. Man confounds The Truth by their own linguistics and grammar. Once you know who the only true "God" is then you will know who the 'Son" spoken of here is. Yes Elohim gave Him, but not as an Old Testament once and for all replacement sacrifice for man's sins to be forgiven by believing that, but by Him coming to this earth to dwell in flesh and save them by exposing the devil.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing! Those who subtly say, "Do you know Jesus as Lord"?
I am the sheep in wolves clothing! I come to expose all the wolves in sheep's clothing. I come to separate the goats from the sheep and set them at my left hand and the sheep at my right!

Overlord!

March 27th 2009, 03:24 PM

Of course, if you simply take the Bible (John 18:31) literally, you don't have delve into extrabiblical sources. But it's always good when history backs up your understanding.

Your interpretation is blasphemous against Jesus and *Our Father*.
Could you possibly mock them any more than you do?
You do a good job of it.

Overlord!

March 27th 2009, 03:27 PM

People take that verse FAR too literally. Do you really think that anyone who acknowledges Jesus's humanity has the authority to speak for God? Even Arians, Mormons, etc.? Of course not.

You are speaking for God.
You've told us what were Jesus motives.
But you are misrepresenting.
So, yes, that verse is worthless.
It was written in ignorance...and...is itself a statement that supports all that is anti-christ.
It supports anti-christ because it tends to isolate Christ to an individual.
Then it makes Christ into a "flesh" individual.
This is anti-christ...because all flesh is anti-christ...just as all individualism is anti-christ.
Special status is anti-christ.

Obsidian

March 27th 2009, 03:52 PM

lol, so now Bible verses are "blasphemous." Okay ;)

Mr. Lamb, you've basically said that Jesus was born into one particular tribe of Satan-worshippers to "fulfill" their satanic laws and their satanic prophecies. You've said that "fulfill" means "abolish," but Jesus specifically said that he didn't come to abolish the law. There obviously has to be some distinction between the two terms; abolish and fulfill have a few similar effects (namely, the halt of animal sacrifices) but they have entirely different meanings. "Fulfilling" a law means you approve of it and embrace it.

In John 8:42-59, Jesus claims to be the God that Abraham worshipped. Abraham worshipped Yahweh (See Genesis 17:1). Do you just consider all these verses mere satanic propaganda?

The reason Marcion was a heretic is because he called the OT evil. But in reality, Jesus fulfilled every messianic prophecy in the OT, and he kept all the Jewish (satanic?) laws as well. Jesus honored the Jewish tradition; he merely condemned the hypocrites.

Overlord!

March 27th 2009, 04:22 PM

Of course, if you simply take the Bible (John 18:31) literally, you don't have delve into extrabiblical sources. But it's always good when history backs up your understanding.

It's your interpretation of Jesus motives relative to the law that are blasphemous.
He would not participate in stoning no matter what law said he should.

In regard John 18:31, do you take it literally?
If so, history is not on your side.
John 18:31 is part of an ideological war between neo-jews (xians) and ancient jews (priesthood).
As suggested in Peter, xians aimed to be a new "royal priesthood".
This sparked conflict between them and the previous priesthood.
Texts like this are used to discredit the old priesthood by making it appear they sacrificed Jesus, albeit ignorantly.

Unfortunately, the whole midnight trial at the high priests house (on the eve preceding passover)...is interpolated...inserted to accomplish an agenda: To make Jesus a blood sacrifice. Ironically, the xians think this had to be done by the previous preisthood to be valid. Yet at the same time, they are trying to discredit same priesthood. Xianity has been schizophrenic regarding the Jews ever since.

The high priesthood was not that stupid.
They did not try anyone as popular as Jesus in the middle of the night...and continue working at it during the Passover!
They had protocol...and this alledged midnight/Passover prosecution does not fit their own rules...let alone their own best interests.

The truth about this is that Pilate wanted to crucify someone from the Jewish populice on the Passover to intimidate the Jews, and show them who was boss.
He selected Jesus because he was popular, and sent out scouts to find him.
Pilates scouts saw Judas first, and paid him to tell where was Jesus.
Then they went and found Jesus and took him into custody.
Judas was motivated by alchohol, the prospect of getting laid, and wanting Jesus to take on the establishment.
The Jewish establishment was not involved in these sequence of events.
It was Passover!
C'mon!

Overlord!

March 27th 2009, 04:44 PM

Jesus specifically said that he didn't come to abolish the law.

You really don't know what Jesus said.
You only know what a scribe said about Jesus.
You don't even know the scribe.
So, "specifically said..." is stretching the truth.
You don't really know what Jesus attitude toward the law was.
Neither do you know what law he was talking about, if he was talking about a law.
Laws, to people who raise people from the dead, may mean something entirely different from what laws mean to people who die.

Xian scribes were part of a neo "royal priesthood" in competition with an ancient Levitical priesthood.
The royal priesthood wanted to use the same scriptures, same law...same god...same sacrifice to same god...only with new blood.
They represented Jesus as a super law keeper...that they may fatten him up for blood sacrifice...making his blood worth more than diamonds.
Blood sacrifice is what motivates a scribe to shove things in Jesus mouth...just before they shove nails in his hands.

Sparko

March 27th 2009, 05:35 PM

overlord, at least we have a written record of what happened and what Jesus said. What do you have to backup the claims you make?

Obsidian

March 27th 2009, 06:07 PM

Matthew was one of Jesus's twelve handpicked disciples, and he most likely heard Jesus say those specific words. Ultimately, Matthew died as a martyr defending his othodox testimony.

Shadow Phoenix

March 27th 2009, 06:22 PM

I don't understand your question.

You spoke about progressive revelation and then of new revelation. What is the relationship of the new revelation to the old?

Overlord!

March 27th 2009, 09:46 PM

Matthew was one of Jesus's twelve handpicked disciples, and he most likely heard Jesus say those specific words. Ultimately, Matthew died as a martyr defending his othodox testimony.

Sorry to say, the only one of the four pop gospel scribes who ever met Jesus was Mark...when Mark was a little child. Matthew was anything but hand-picked. And he wears the most jewish colored glasses of the four pop scribes.

"T" source

Overlord!

March 27th 2009, 10:11 PM

overlord, at least we have a written record of what happened and what Jesus said. What do you have to backup the claims you make?

I have written records too:

"T" source
"J" source
"S" source
"D" source

These are my four gospels.
They are less then 2000 years old, so you may not consider them to be true. :teeth:

Overlord!

March 27th 2009, 11:15 PM

overlord, at least we have a written record of what happened and what Jesus said. What do you have to backup the claims you make?

It's a written record. It's based on a true story. The story is spun the way the scribe wants you to hear it. They do it in the movies all the time..."based on a true story". If you go to youtube and type in "recut" you can see how artists with agendas can turn things around...able even to make Tom Cruise in "Top Gun" look gay.

Not saying pop gospel scribes did this deliberately with intent. Saying that "man" is an agenda contrary to truth. The gospel is contrary to the existence of man, so there is a built-in conflict of interest.

If Jesus were to compose a text directly without editing...still..there would be divergent groups of "believers" emerging with their own interpetations...using the same text! That's how incorrigable the nature of man is.

Obsidian

March 28th 2009, 01:50 AM

So Matthew made up a false story and then let himself get killed rather than recant? Your theory is becoming more and more believable by the minute. :ahem:

I suppose he also made up all the Jewish prophecies that predicted Jesus's arrival.

And he coordinated his deception with Peter and John, who also let themselves get killed to support the lie.

Overlord!

March 28th 2009, 02:42 AM

So Matthew made up a false story and then let himself get killed rather than recant?

What do you know about the scribe of the gospel entitled "Matthew"...really?
What do you know about the actual Matthew that met Jesus?
How do you know under what circumstances they died?
And if they died, what does that say about how much they understood Jesus?
Those who understand Jesus should not taste death...so how is death not evidence of incomprehension?
What makes you think any of those who met Jesus, or spent time with him, also understood him?
What makes you think that just because someone dies for what they believe, what they believe is true?
Some xians believed that they had to die first in order to go to heaven and be with Christ.
So, why wouldn't they gladly accept death for what they believed in?

I suppose he also made up all the Jewish prophecies that predicted Jesus's arrival.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that Jesus was crucified and rose - miraculously - from the dead.
That means different things to different minds...depending on prejudice and predilections.
To most of those who were tagging along with Jesus, that meant he was most extraordinary.
The most extraordinary persona a Jew could think of was the legendary "messiah"...an expected super-king of supra-Solomonic - divine - proportions.
Those predilected toward worldly aspirations will interpret Jesus within that paradigm.
So they began forcing scripture on Jesus, saying that he fulfilled this, that and the other.
And they made scripture come out of Jesus mouth, and they made Jesus endorse what they said endorses Jesus.
All this to make Jesus their messiah.
But Jesus is not the messiah of Hebrew lore.
The messiah of Hebrew lore is anti-christ...against all that Christ stands for.
And this is because they didn't really want Christ...wanting anti-christ "messiah" instead.
Scholars are now debunking the whole prophetic connection by simply examining all of the so-called prophecies that alledgedly applied to Jesus.
It's quite obvious that Hebrew literature is taken and twisted to fit.
Strangely, in his efforts to force Hebrew lore on Jesus, the scribe of Matthew starts off with a long geneology.
And yet, Jesus was all about "call no man father"!
And those who did trace their geneologies as if they meant anything, Jesus rebuked and called their father "the devil".
So the whole prophecy thing is way overblown.
In the gospel of Thomas, Jesus blows off the prophets as "the dead".
It only matters who is living. Only those who are living have the truth...are the truth.

And he coordinated his deception with Peter and John, who also let themselves get killed to support the lie.

Peter and John were decieved. There was no need to coordinate any kind of conspiracy. Read the later chapters of John and see for yourself how the desciples still had no clue what Jesus was talking about...even right up to before he was crucified! And do you think they learned in the next month and a half what they did not learn in the previous two or three years? Jesus is quoted as saying that there were many things they would understand "later". He does not say what "later" means. It could mean that they would understand in subsequent incarnations...hundreds of years down the road. You just don't know. What's clear is they did not understand. And appeals to a sudden, overnight understanding just don't fly. The Holy Spirit is not one to force understanding on anyone who does not wish to understand. And anyone looking for a messiah of Hebrew lore is actively working to not understand...working against the Holy Spirit.

It's not so much a lie that Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried and rose again from the dead.
Information about this is important to the atonement process.
It is a lie that he is the messiah of Hebrew lore.
Those who believe he is that messiah do not know what they do...know not they promote a lie.
They think they do God service...but actually they serve what is anti-christ by such endeavors.

Obsidian

March 28th 2009, 03:21 AM

I don't know where you get the idea from that godly people don't die. Jesus himself was godly, and he died. Everyone dies at some point.

Dying for a belief doesn't make it true, but it highly suggests that the person dying isn't a liar. If I die for my beliefs, you know that I am sincere. If Matthew and Peter (through Mark) wrote complementary accounts of Jesus -- and then they both died in support of their testimony, you can logically conclude that they were sincere. There weren't making facts up, as you accused them of doing.

They could (theoretically, as you point out) be confused, but the FACTS of their accounts would be substantially accurate. And according to the FACTS, Jesus upheld and fulfilled Jewish law.

Where else could you possibly get your morality from if not from the OT God? Your rejection of the OT has sent you down the path of paganism.

Overlord!

March 28th 2009, 03:36 AM

They could (theoretically, as you point out) be confused, but the FACTS of their accounts would be substantially accurate. And according to the FACTS, Jesus upheld and fulfilled Jewish law.

No. The facts are that he - his body - was crucified, died, was "buried", rose again from the dead, appeared, disappeared, appeared again, and ascended a few weeks later.
Beyond that is conjecture.
Those facts say nothing of what Jesus thought or did about Jewish law.
In fact, there are instances in those gospels in which the authorities frowned upon what they thought was a disregard for Jewish law by Jesus and/or his associates.

I'm telling you why they make Jesus to be a super law keeper.
It's because superstitiously, they believe that the blood of a Jewish law-keeper is more valuable.
This blood needs to be valuable enough to "pay" for their "sins".
Even now, you are frowning on anyone who does not bow to the OT god, its edicts, and its moral character.
How much more in those days when such idolotry approached fever pitch fanaticism.
So fanatical were they, even among Jesus followers, that Jesus had to pull Thomas aside and speak things privately that the others were not yet ready to handle without emotionally reacting in a way that would endanger Thomas' life.

GT #13

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

Overlord!

March 28th 2009, 04:12 AM

I don't know where you get the idea from that godly people don't die. Jesus himself was godly, and he died. Everyone dies at some point.

Jesus died before he went to the cross.
And having died, he was already alive.
I mean, he had already resurrected before the whole cross-ressurrection sequence.
The cross-ressurrection sequence was for teaching...for demonstrating the truth of what Jesus had previously taught.
Jesus taught that an innocent mind cannot suffer.
He did not suffer.
He also taught there was nothing to fear.
He did not fear.
He taught that the Son of God cannot be destroyed.
He was not destroyed.
He taught that the body was nothing.
He demonstrated not a care for the body.
He taught that the best defense is none whatsoever.
He taught that the truth needs no defense.
He did not defend himself...and it did not hurt him.

He accomplished these things because, long before the cross, Jesus had already layed down his life for his friends.
We are his friends.
He did this for us.
It is the most loving thing anyone can do for anyone...not to mention for Self.
Jesus died to personhood.
He lived ever after in Christ...for Christ...as Christ...the "living one".

So, the death Jesus advocated is not the death xians advocate.
Jesus advocated dying to what we consider to be our life...what we think we are.
We think we are persons, Greek, Jew, male, female...ect.
But there is no male or female in Christ, nor Jew nor Greek...nor persons!
We must "die" to "ourselves"...die to personhood.
Unless we lay down our so-called life, we cannot take it up again as who we really are: Spirit...Christ.

Physical death accomplishes nothing...and is a sign of indecision.
Someone who dies physically - in a traditional manner - has not decided to "die" the way Jesus died.
If we decide to die like Jesus died...before the cross-resurrection scenario...we will not "taste" a traditional death.
This is in your pop gospels, as well as in the the very first sentence in Thomas' gospel.

The only reason Jesus volunteered for crucifixion is to get to the resurrection.
So, if the apostles all died, they should have risen from the dead like Jesus.
But they didn't because they didn't understand him, and did not lay down their lives they way Jesus taught.
How can Jesus demonstrate resurrection without going through the motions of death?
You say he died.
Oh really?
I say he was a teacher...teaching.
I say he was teaching about Life...not death.
I say he was teaching that Life is the truth...not death.

Those who die traditionally are essentially liars.
Those who do not die traditionally are the truth.
Dying is lying.
The only death that matters is the death of personhood by a withdrawl of faith in it.
When faith is withdrawn from personhood, and placed in Christ...the mind is transformed.
It is the transformed mind that lives.
As the mind lives, so does the body take on attributes of the truth.
In truth, Jesus did not die anymore than actors die on stage.
A body is not Life.
A body is death.
Jesus was not a body.
Jesus is Spirit.
A body is a lie.
Spirit is the truth.

A mind dedicated wholly to the Spirit of truth will *convert* a body from a tool for lies to a tool for truth.
A body can never be the truth, but it can demonstrate attributes of the truth.
In need not get sick, nor age, nor die...in the traditional sense.
It will eventually be disposed of...but not traditionally.
Personhood itself must be disposed of before the body will take on attributes of the truth.

Because the body is not the truth, the body must eventually be discarded.
Jesus discarded the body. It didn't "die" so much as he put it away.
Jesus put his body away miraculously...defying the "law" of gravity.
But he could just as easily have disappeared.
The point is...the body must disappear...be gone...forever.
The body must pass away with the rest of the world.
How it goes may vary, depending on what the "plan" is.
Those who give themselves to the truth will be transformed.
A transformed mind will yield a body which demonstrates attributes of the truth.
The truth can never die because Life is the truth.
Jesus could have just disappeared, because the body is not the truth...rather, Spirit is the truth.
But before he disappeared, he taught us some valuable lessons first.
This fulfilled his "role" in the Spirit plan for our salvation.
One in truth puts the body down like a carpenter puts down a hammer.

But we all have a "role" to play in this plan.
And if we will not die to ourselves, we cannot fulfill our role in the plan.
None of the apostles died the way Jesus died, so they did not accomplish anything extraordinary in dying a physical death.
They did not teach anything of value through traditional death scenarios.
Contrarily, they demonstrated they did not understand Jesus...and never decided to accept the atonement.
You say they were "godly".
I say no.
God is the truth.
God is life.
God does not die.

Obsidian

March 28th 2009, 05:47 AM

Overlord!

March 28th 2009, 08:47 AM

You are completely evading the issue. Either Matthew (and Peter) lied when he wrote his book -- and then died in support of his deception -- or he told the truth. He either intentionally made up Jesus's quotes, parables, and actions, or he recorded them honestly. Which is it?

Did Matthew lie when he recorded that, or did he really hear it?

How about that one?

Or that one?

None of this is "conjecture." It's all stuff that Matthew either heard or simply lied about.

First off, the scribe of Matthew did not meet Jesus, so whatever he wrote was hearsay...and not anything he heard. If the scribe himself is not lying, then he wrote down lies he had heard. Those who lied may have thought they were doing God a service. Their lies are based on conjecture. The conjecture is based on an interpretation of the cross. If the letter called "Peter" is of Peter, then Peter was gravely mistaken about the whole purpose of the cross. Peter believed...and here is where the conjecture begins...that the cross was about blood sacrifice for payment for sins. This is a deeply Jewish way of thinking. Now, if the cross is interpreted this way, it's a mistake. It's a mistake because it is not true. The one who is mistaken does not really know that he is really lying. Properly understood, Christ is sacrificed for sins...before the foundation of the world. If you leave off the "before the foundation of the world" part, and make Christ the same as Jesus, then the message starts to go to hell in a handbasket. Now the interpreters have it backwards, and are "lost". Are the "lost" liars? The world is a lie that kills Christ. Lying is a form of salvation...for those who are yet a "friend of the world. "

A lie is never a lie to the one who believes it and tells it. We only believe things we think are true! Peter thought it was true that the cross was about blood sacrifice...if it is Peter who wrote the letter(s) that go by his name. If that's what Peter thought, then what he thought is founded on "sand"...and not the proverbial "rock". To "sell" the idea of blood sacrifice, it now becomes necessary to build a theology to back it up. And oh the web we weave when at first we do deceive. To back up blood sacrifice, we need to fatten Jesus up, so we can slaughter him later. What better way to fatten up the sacrificial lamb than to raise it on perfect law-keeping. In other words, the theological lies that the scribe of Matthew tells is simply to back up what at least one of Jesus associates thought about the cross, namely, Peter. But not all, namely, Thomas. So, whatever Jesus actually did say about the law is going to be misconstrued to mean something in support of the agenda of blood sacrifice. The supporters of blood sacrifice believe this is what is necessary for them to be saved. They are dead wrong. The result is an aweful game of "telephone" in which the true meaning is lost in translation, and bogus theology is interpolated into text.

Matthew is the early version of "Jews for Jesus" mentality. There are fringe groups, among xians who are so fanatically pro-law, it makes you wonder why they even believe in Jesus. Likewise, Matthew is what is called a "judaizer"....one who takes an a-Jewish message, and converts it into Jewish terms for Jewish minds to understand...their way. But their way was not Jesus' way. The texts you quoted are not too different from saying number #12 in the gospel of Thomas. That saying is utterly interpolated...added by subsequent scribes who took liberties as they copied the text. It seems to pass leadership of the church to James the Just. James was among the judaizers of Jesus message...rendering it null and void by his traditions. James was even more judistic than Paul who prefered just to take the blood sacrifice part and leave the rest. A judaizer is one who argues about things like circumcision because, basically, he does not understand the gospel! Once one understands the gospel, there is no question about circumcision. If there is any uncertainty about this...if it seems like something that needs to be done...then that person does not understand the gospel...period. So there was a rift between the earliest pioneers of Jesus' legacy...Thomas on one side...Peter, James, and even John on the other side. At one point, an edict was issued to avoid the Thomas camp. The insertion of saying #12 into Thomas' text is a legacy of the rift between these camps. Like propoganda, saying #12 just jumps out of nowhere...sabotages the text...and then disappears into the darkeness from which it came. I'm not saying the texts quoted are interpolated into the Matthew text. I'm saying that the scribe interpolates himself and his views into an evolving theology based on conjecture. He inserts himself into the debate some 40-60 years after the resurrection!

Obsidian, these people were ruthless when it came to what they believed in. You are not grasping the fanatical nature of their belief systems, nor the extent "believers" went to promote their take on Jesus' story. We're talking about people so fanatical that some things had to be told Thomas privately and kept secret, lest they react with stones! You think the apostles were hand picked. You greatly misunderstand. They were students who followed...physically...and pseudo-intellectually. Anyone could follow Jesus if he wanted to...anyone! Jesus was inclusive...not exclusive. Neither was there any such number as 12 apostles. All that is b.s. to promote the stature of a certain group of power hungry promoters who were jockeying for position in among a new "royal priesthood". Little did they know, or care, that there is no heirarchy in the Kingdom of God.

The texts you quote are officially *yarns*. They serve to back the Petrine/Jamesian interpretation of salvation...nOt what Jesus taught. The scribe of Matthew, or the storytellers he heard, no doubt felt fully justified in this interpretation of Jesus message. The interpretations are then turned into narratives, and shoved into Jesus' mouth. That's just how it worked in those days.

So, once again, those saying are the end product of what begins as conjecture. Conjecture starts in the mind that witnesses Jesus cross and resurrection...and interprets it to fit preconcieved notions about salvation and how it is achieved. They absolutely embellished the story to fulfill their own agenda...and not a little...a lot!

John Goddard

March 28th 2009, 09:10 AM

And John Goddard, the verse you cited doesn't prove anything. It certainly doesn't mention your Passover Theory. At best, it shows that Pilate was authorizing a specific execution.

What do you mean "at best"? Of course it authorizes it. The verses say they were concerned about being defiled for Passover, and that Pilate gave his ok right there. So you guys just made a bad assumption thinking they were prohibited by Roman Law because you weren't careful in reading the text showing that the only concern ever specified was for Passover Law. You just want to keep preaching the old church tradition passed around. Not my problem, it says what it says.

Overlord!

March 28th 2009, 09:16 AM

What do you mean "at best"? Of course it authorizes it. The verses say they were concerned about being defiled for Passover, and that Pilate gave his ok right there. So you guys just made a bad assumption thinking they were prohibited by Roman Law because you weren't careful in reading the text showing that the only concern ever specified was for Passover Law. You just want to keep preaching the old church tradition passed around. Not my problem, it says what it says.

Do you believe everything you read?

John Goddard

March 28th 2009, 09:30 AM

Do you believe everything you read?

Do you? What kind of a dumb question is that.

smaneck

March 28th 2009, 02:05 PM

You spoke about progressive revelation and then of new revelation. What is the relationship of the new revelation to the old?

I don't know what you mean by the relationship of the new revelation to the old. You seem to be presuming something I don't understand.

Sparko

March 28th 2009, 02:16 PM

I don't know what you mean by the relationship of the new revelation to the old. You seem to be presuming something I don't understand.

he is asking what you mean by the term "progressive" - do you mean it can be contradictory to prior revelation or not.

Overlord!

March 28th 2009, 03:09 PM

Do you? What kind of a dumb question is that.

Do you believe everything you read in the bible?

Obsidian

March 28th 2009, 03:40 PM

John Goddard, your verse mentions that they didn't want to enter a gentile palace because associating with gentiles would defile them.

I don't know of any reason why a lawful execution would make them ceramonially unclean. Can you please provide me with evidence of that?

Overlord!

March 28th 2009, 07:01 PM

overlord, at least we have a written record of what happened and what Jesus said. What do you have to backup the claims you make?

I have the gospel of Thomas...a written record.
It tells us of an occasion when Jesus took Thomas aside, privately to tell him something.
It was something the other could not handle yet at that time.
Here is what it says:

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

Here are the three things he said:

You dream of a desert, where mirages are your rulers and tormentors, yet these images come from you.
Father did not make the desert, and your home is still with Him.
To return, forgive your brother, for only then do you forgive yourself.

This is what the others would have stoned him for.
So, this is the kind of information the rest were not prepared to recieve.

Sparko

March 28th 2009, 10:00 PM

I have the gospel of Thomas...a written record.
It tells us of an occasion when Jesus took Thomas aside, privately to tell him something.
It was something the other could not handle yet at that time.
Here is what it says:

Here are the three things he said:

This is what the others would have stoned him for.
So, this is the kind of information the rest were not prepared to recieve.

and the Gospel of Thomas was written 150 years after Jesus and is full of anachronism and gnostic heresy.

so basically you have nothing.

Overlord!

March 28th 2009, 10:09 PM

and the Gospel of Thomas was written 150 years after Jesus and is full of anachronism and gnostic heresy.

so basically you have nothing.

Nope. Copies were copied 150 + years later. A copy is not indicative of when a document was authored.

Perrin's case is smoke and mirrors.

Sparko

March 28th 2009, 10:20 PM

Nope. Copies were copied 150 + years later. A copy is not indicative of when a document was authored.

Perrin's case is smoke and mirrors.

The dating is not based on the date of the copy but the contents of the "gospel"

Overlord!

March 28th 2009, 10:25 PM

The dating is not based on the date of the copy but the contents of the "gospel"

:eek:Ha! What a joke!

infinity700

March 28th 2009, 11:43 PM

[QUOTE][It's hard for a clear answer why God of the ot was a bit cruel and then God in the NT is somewhat so forgiving/QUOTE]

Returning to the original thread: The reason for the radical difference is that they are not the same God. Is it not so that the God of the OT and the God of Jesus (according to the NT) portrayed two completely different God-concepts. The God-concept of Jesus was termed "ABBA" in the Aramaic, which is a term of endearment. When translated into English, Jesus is referring to the the Presence of God within as his "Papa" or his "Beloved". He would spend the whole night in prayer and meditation renewing his intimate relationship with his Beloved Papa. And the God of Jesus resounded at the baptism, "And you are my Beloved Child". In spite of the "extreme" cruelity of God (at times) in the OT stories, Jesus summarized the OT scriptures as being about love -- loving God and loving human-kind as yourself. And that is what he taught: love and forgiveness.

Obsidian

March 29th 2009, 02:57 AM

The verses say they were concerned about being defiled for Passover, and that Pilate gave his ok right there.

John Goddard, even if what you're saying is true (and I don't think it is), it wouldn't contradict John 18:31. What you've admitted is that the Passover might be a secondary reason why the Jews couldn't kill Jesus. That is, Pilate told them, "Go ahead and crucify him yourselves," but they didn't want to violate their Passover rules (I guess they couldn't wait a few days?).

But I think you're wrong about Passover. There's nothing ceramonially unclean about executing a criminal in accordance with God's laws. And the Jews certainly didn't have the apparatus to crucify people. Let's get real: Pilate was merely being facetious.

The reason it was wrong to execute the woman was because Israel was no longer a sovereign power. God had deserted them and handed their nation over to the gentiles, and the Romans told them they couldn't just stone (ie, lynch) people whenever they felt like it.

Obsidian

March 29th 2009, 03:15 AM

In spite of the "extreme" cruelity of God (at times) in the OT stories, Jesus summarized the OT scriptures as being about love -- loving God and loving human-kind as yourself. And that is what he taught: love and forgiveness.

Do me a favor, Infinity. Read these verses:
Deuteronomy 6:5
Leviticus 19:18

They're the same God.

John Goddard

March 29th 2009, 09:16 AM

But I think you're wrong about Passover. There's nothing ceramonially unclean about executing a criminal in accordance with God's laws.

Being defiled for Passover is the only reason given as to why they had to keep hands off actual judgment to execute:

John 18:28 ...they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

And the Jews certainly didn't have the apparatus to crucify people.

Pilate gave it to them right here:

John 19:6 ...Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

Let's get real: Pilate was merely being facetious.

Where does it say that? Do you think that Pilate really found fault in Jesus?

The reason it was wrong to execute the woman was because Israel was no longer a sovereign power. God had deserted them and handed their nation over to the gentiles, and the Romans told them they couldn't just stone (ie, lynch) people whenever they felt like it.

The reason it was wrong is because those who wanted to execute her were guilty of sin too, and executing her would make them hypocrites.

Nothing in the Bible says Jews had no Roman authority to execute, since in John 19:6 they were given permission. Someone just made that up a long time ago and Christians bought into it. Theirs is just a case of sloppy reading and not understanding the text. Sorry.

Sparko

March 29th 2009, 12:10 PM

:eek:Ha! What a joke!

exactly. the gospel of thomas is a joke.

Sparko

March 29th 2009, 12:31 PM

Nothing in the Bible says Jews had no Roman authority to execute, since in John 19:6 they were given permission. Someone just made that up a long time ago and Christians bought into it. Theirs is just a case of sloppy reading and not understanding the text. Sorry.

Although at one time the Jews had jurisdiction to impose capital punishment, the Roman government revoked this power. “A tradition preserved in a baraita (early edition) in [the Jerusalem Talmud] Sanhedrin 18a and 24b (related to Mishna Sanhedrin 1.1 and 7.2) states that the right of pronouncing sentences of life and death was taken from Israel forty years before the destruction of the Temple (thus AD 30).”[17] (http://www.nds.edu/old/sanhedrin.htm#_ftn17) In this context, the reference to forty years appears to be a round number and probably relates back to AD 6 at the arrival of the prefect Coponius when the province of Judea was founded.[18] (http://www.nds.edu/old/sanhedrin.htm#_ftn18) Additionally, the very early Jewish Fasting Scroll corroborates a Roman removal of jurisdiction. The scroll indicates that five days after the Roman cohort withdrew from Jerusalem in September AD 66, the Jews began executing evildoers and thereafter established a national holiday on which fasting was banned in celebration of their renewed capital jurisdiction.[19] (http://www.nds.edu/old/sanhedrin.htm#_ftn19) There are also canonical and extra-canonical references to certain judicial actions, which support the assertion that during the Roman prefecture (AD 6-66) the Romans assumed the power to execute.

http://www.nds.edu/old/sanhedrin.htm#_ftn17

Overlord!

March 29th 2009, 02:27 PM

exactly. the gospel of thomas is a joke.

Here's a joke for you:

Overlord!: How do you tell the difference between early theology and late theology?
Sparko: If it's on before 10 pm it's early theology. If it's on after 10 pm it's late theology!

John Goddard

March 29th 2009, 03:34 PM

“A tradition preserved in a baraita (early edition) in [the Jerusalem Talmud] Sanhedrin 18a and 24b (related to Mishna Sanhedrin 1.1 and 7.2) states that the right of pronouncing sentences of life and death was taken from Israel forty years before the destruction of the Temple (thus AD 30).”[17] (http://www.nds.edu/old/sanhedrin.htm#_ftn17)

So you trust what the Talmud says more than John 19:6? Yikes...

Obsidian

March 29th 2009, 07:06 PM

infinity700

March 29th 2009, 07:41 PM

Do me a favor, Infinity. Read these verses:
Deuteronomy 6:5
Leviticus 19:18

They're the same God

I think not! You see, the God of Moses in the OT does not practice what he preaches. Compare below what God says to Moses with his message for Saul.

“Never seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18)

"Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling'" (1 Samuel 15:3)

Obsidian, my neighbor, that is not love. And it is not a God that I believe in. And I doubt it portrays the God that Jesus knew!

Obsidian

March 29th 2009, 07:43 PM

LambofElohim

March 30th 2009, 04:39 AM

Greetings,

obsidian says, Read these verses:
Deuteronomy 6:5
Leviticus 19:18

They're the same God

Yes..."the LORD" in Deuteronomy is the same god as "the LORD" in Leviticus.

Oh Israel..."the LORD" your god is one "LORD", but He is not "God"!

infinity700, You seem to think that there is a possibility of there being two Gods in the bible, but it is not that there are two Gods; there is one God and one god known as "the LORD" in the Old Testament Laws of Moses in the bible. That one you spoke of that smites and destroys...uh...he's the devil.

The Brother of Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

John Goddard

March 30th 2009, 09:42 AM

John Goddard, I think your reading of the text is flawed; "We have no right to execute" suggests a lack of legal authority, not a temporary religious restriction. (Of course, I'm no Greek scholar or translator.) But forgetting about that, you still completed ignored my main question:

It doesn't suggest a lack of legal authority at all since right here Pilate gives authority to them. How many times should I post these verses?

John 19:6 ...Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

Who says a Passover execution would defile them? I'm not a Jew, but as far as I know, executions don't defile anyone.

Says right here they wanted hands off with the formal process:

John 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

The problem with your theology is that it seems to make Jesus contradict the OT. In the OT, no one was sinless, but God still commanded them to kill various people.

There's no problem or contradiction. God directly committed judgment to various people like Moses and King David. When those guys sinned, God punished them. It all culminated with Jesus having that role of Judge. So that's where it stays, Jesus is Judge with authority to execute, no one else,

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

So now maybe you should just explain thoroughly what John 18:28 and John 19:6 mean since dodging around them has you going in circles. How is my reading flawed, exactly? Be precise not vague. Thanks.

Obsidian

March 30th 2009, 10:26 AM

Okay, thanks for completely ignoring my question...again. Assorting with gentiles can lead to defilement, but I haven't heard any evidence that execution would defile the executioners. I must therefore assume that you just don't know anything about Jewish ceremonial laws, or how they would impact executioners.

Obsidian

March 30th 2009, 10:45 AM

And just to be clear -- so that maybe you can feel better about answering my question -- I will make CERTAIN I have answered yours:

John 18:28: Then the Jews led Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness the Jews did not enter the palace; they wanted to be able to eat the Passover.

This verse refers to a basic ceremonial injunction against intermingling with gentiles. It has nothing to do with executions.

John 19:6: As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, "Crucify! Crucify!"
But Pilate answered, "You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him."

Based on the fact that 1) the Jews didn't kill Jesus after he said this, but rather complained about Jesus's deserving death, and that 2) Jews never performed crucifixions and probably wouldn't even know how, I'm making the exegetical assumption that Pilate was being unserious.

Now please answer my question! What Jewish law would restrict an execution during Passover?

Sparko

March 30th 2009, 11:06 AM

So you trust what the Talmud says more than John 19:6? Yikes...

Since it was written by the Jews at the time that it happened, I do trust what they say. Do you think they would bother to lie about that? For what purpose.

The priests in the bible do not say that it was just for passover. That is YOU reading into the passage.

So the bible says they can't execute, and the contemporary jewish writings of the time say they didn't have the power of capital punishment, and yet YOU insist they did.

So the question is: do I trust what YOU say over what the bible and contemporary Jewish commentaries say? And the answer is no.

infinity700

March 30th 2009, 03:45 PM

Oh Israel..."the LORD" your god is one "LORD", but He is not "God"!

infinity700, You seem to think that there is a possibility of there being two Gods in the bible, but it is not that there are two Gods; there is one God and one god known as "the LORD" in the Old Testament Laws of Moses in the bible. That one you spoke of that smites and destroys...uh...he's the devil.

Reverend Carlton,
The original thread related to the OT God and NT God as seeming to be different. I commented then that they ARE different. Now you have interjected the concept that there are various god-concepts in the OT. I agree. But I would put it this way. There a a gazillion statements in the Bible regarding God, and Lord, and Father, and Satan, etc. None of these statements are from "GOD" about "GOD". They are the "God-concepts" of the particular writer, be it Moses, Abraham, Samuel, Jesus, Paul, Matthew, or Luke, etc. So the God of Moses was known to be "cruel" at times. The God of Paul was, shall we say, much less cruel and much more loving. Of course, you seem to have your own God-concept and god-concept. And so do I. And that is the way it should be.

LambofElohim

March 30th 2009, 03:59 PM

Greetings,

What does this discussion have to do with whether or not "the LORD" in the Old Testament is the same "God" that "Jesus" of John was speaking about...and they are not! Simplicity is the hardest thing for man to accept; the more complicated and enigmatic something is, the more fun it is to use it to boost your ego and pride, thinking you are the one who has all the answers right.

This is simple: God" is Elohim and The Word. That same The Word that was made flesh in the person of His own Son, "Jesus Christ". Israel never knew this "God"; instead Israel followed after a false god YHVH, YeHeVeH or Jehovah as he is called, believing he was "God". This Old Testament false god used early man's ignorance to The Truth and their naivety to deceive them into believing he was the real "God", Elohim; Hebrew for the words, "The Ancient One(s)". YeHeVeH being Hebrew for "The Jealous One of" or "he who wants to become".

This false god that deceived men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. This false god that actually was almost as powerful as "God" who created him. This false god had power to make it rain, form from what he was in contact with using his imaginations, do signs and wonders in the sight of men and would make himself visible every chance he got. The more he would appear and these prophecies would happen; the more that their was a chance that they would think he was "God".

He began to take advantage of their hearts and the continual evil thoughts that they had. They were killing animals as offerings to unknown gods as well. This false god used Moses to begin a people and nation that would worship him and somehow use that nation to deceive the whole world into believing that he was "God". This false god kept Moses on the mountain so long that the people thought he was never coming back and that when Moses did come back and see what they were doing Moses would be mad enough to smash the Twelve Decrees concerning "the LORD" that "God" had issued to them on his behalf and be able to add to them and twist them to his liking. This included sacrificing and giving bunt offerings, stonings, prejudism, and self afflictions. These were the Laws of Moses that the "Jesus" of John came to stop and fulfill; to put and end to. The time was over for for the Old Testament worshiping of this false god and "God" came as His own Son to attempt to do it. This false god used the pride and ignorance of the men performing thee laws to a tee and was able to have them kill and silence "God's" attempt at reaching them.

Then his false god did the same thing using his angels, prophecies and signs and wonders; including a virgin birth to imitate what "God" had just attempted to do as His own Son. He waited and grew up as a philosopher of sorts, using his knowledge of all things past to dazzle the elders with scripture. At around the same age as the man that "God" Himself was he had that flesh baptized to the ghost of the devil itself could enter him and after fasting have authority over lesser demons. This "Jesus" was rejected and attempted to be killed. As I have said the devil would try again and again and send a few more "Jesuses" on his way of being the author of confusion. Using man's ignorance and pride to confuse them all into believing they are one "Jesus".

SImple? All you need to know is the first paragraph. The rest I thought I would educate my bretheren and sisteren a little bit on The Truth.

The Brother of the Jesus Christ that the only true God hast sent
Reverend Carlton

infinity700

March 30th 2009, 04:08 PM

My point is that love must have limits. When Jesus condemned the Pharisees with harsh language, you might say that he was "unloving." But they deserved condemnation, and by condemning them, Jesus liberated many people.

The police love you when they protect you from murderers. But they show very little love to criminals.

The Amalekites definitely had it coming.

Obsidian,
My concept of LOVE differs from yours. Love, as I understand it, is without limitation. LOVE is God's very essence. Therefore, the human expression of Love, for me, does not carry with it the attitude "they deserved condemnation" or "The Amalekites definitely had it coming." Also, we don't know the full story of how Jesus related with the Pharisees. Rather, we have the writers understanding of it. People see and hear, not what happened, but their interpretation of what happened. The police are expressing love to the Child of God, which you interpret to be a "criminal", by exercising their training, yet respecting them as citizens with legal rights. Of course, if they are not expressing love, anything can happen. Blessings!

glostik88

March 30th 2009, 05:00 PM

Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman because it says earlier in John 3:17 that he did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save it

John Goddard

March 30th 2009, 07:29 PM

Since it was written by the Jews at the time that it happened, I do trust what they say. Do you think they would bother to lie about that? For what purpose.

Who knows, doesn't matter. It matters that John 19:6 disagrees with you and the Talmud.

So the bible says they can't execute, and the contemporary jewish writings of the time say they didn't have the power of capital punishment, and yet YOU insist they did.

Why don't you explain why you trust the Talmud more than the NT when it says they were given power to execute?

John 19:6 ...Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

So the question is: do I trust what YOU say over what the bible and contemporary Jewish commentaries say? And the answer is no.

The Bible agrees with me. You just don't want to admit you are wrong, especially to a heretic like me.

John Goddard

March 30th 2009, 07:35 PM

This verse refers to a basic ceremonial injunction against intermingling with gentiles. It has nothing to do with executions.

Wrong, they mingled.

John 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

Now please answer my question! What Jewish law would restrict an execution during Passover?

According to the Synoptics, the date of his death was the 15th of Nisan (first day of Passover), when again no execution could be held (Mishnah Sanh. iv. 1; and the commentaries: Yer. Sanh. ii. 3; Yer. Beẓ. v. 2; Ket. i. 1). (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=C)

Sparko

March 30th 2009, 07:51 PM

Who knows, doesn't matter. It matters that John 19:6 disagrees with you and the Talmud.

Why don't you explain why you trust the Talmud more than the NT when it says they were given power to execute?

John 19:6 ...Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

The Bible agrees with me. You just don't want to admit you are wrong, especially to a heretic like me.

Pilate was showing exasperation. He obviously knew they couldn't execute him themselves. They told him so. and I am sure he was familiar with their laws regarding such things anyway. So even if your theory is true, he would know they couldnt execute on the passover, so your rationalization in the face of all facts to the contrary is just wrong.

historical records back up the claim that they did not have the ability to perform capital punishment.

Not to mention that Jews would never crucify anyone anyhow. That was not their way. They would have stoned him if they could.

Sparko

March 30th 2009, 07:58 PM

Wrong, they mingled.

John 19:21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

According to the Synoptics, the date of his death was the 15th of Nisan (first day of Passover), when again no execution could be held (Mishnah Sanh. iv. 1; and the commentaries: Yer. Sanh. ii. 3; Yer. Beẓ. v. 2; Ket. i. 1). (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=C)

well since you consider the Jewish Encyclopedia authoritive let me give you this:

This was especially the case with the development of the civil and ritualistic laws, which governed Jewish life long after the Roman conquest of Palestine. But also in criminal law, involving capital punishment, the right to administer which had been taken from the Sanhedrin decades before the fall of Jerusalem (Sanh. 41a; Yer. Sanh. i. 18a,vii. 24b), the Rabbis delved deeply, elaborating the details thereof with a view to their application in the hoped-for Messianic days (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/volume3/V03p558001.jpg, Sanh. 51b; Yeb. 45a) or for the satisfaction accruing from study (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/volume3/V03p558002.jpg, ib.).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=128&letter=C&search=capital%20punishment

John Goddard

March 30th 2009, 08:55 PM

But also in criminal law, involving capital punishment, the right to administer which had been taken from the Sanhedrin decades before the fall of Jerusalem (Sanh. 41a; Yer. Sanh. i. 18a,vii. 24b),

...without Roman permission. They had it here:

John 19:6 ...Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

So what the Bible says above determines that they did have some permission and thus, they could have had it with the adulteress too.

Pilate was showing exasperation. He obviously knew they couldn't execute him themselves.

Nonsense, he was the Roman authority there and could give that permission. You're grasping at straws...

Obsidian

March 30th 2009, 10:04 PM

The source you gave actually doesn't support your position. That is, it makes no suggestion that execution would ceremonially defile the executioners. Rather, it simply states that no execution -- Jewish or Roman -- could take place during Passover (The Jewish Encyclopedia seems to be looking for contradictions within the NT). But as John 18:28 points out, the Passover had not arrived yet.

And in the very same paragraph, your source states that, "Besides this, penal jurisdiction had been taken from the Sanhedrin in capital cases 'forty years before the fall of the Temple.'" Personally, I've actually read contradictory accounts regarding the exact date when the Jews lost capital authority. Some people say it was around around 30 AD, whereas others have suggested 7 AD or perhaps earlier.

But regardless, now who's adding to the text? In your view, Pilate was being serious -- so therefore he had also condoned the stoning of the adulteress? Talk about grasping.

John Goddard

March 30th 2009, 11:09 PM

Rather, it simply states that no execution -- Jewish or Roman -- could take place during Passover...

Romans didn't observe Passover, that makes no sense.

But as John 18:28 points out, the Passover had not arrived yet.

Passover preparation had already begun with cleaning out the chametz, during the Last Supper. you had to be ceremonially clean by morning.

The prohibitions take effect around late morning on the eve of Passover, or the 14th of Nisan. Chametz is permitted again at nightfall after the final day of Passover. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chametz)

And in the very same paragraph, your source states that, "Besides this, penal jurisdiction had been taken from the Sanhedrin in capital cases 'forty years before the fall of the Temple.'"

Yeah, they could not execute without permission, as I said. They definitely had permission from Pilate for Jesus, and possibly also for the adulteress.

But regardless, now who's adding to the text? In your view, Pilate was being serious -- so therefore he had also condoned the stoning of the adulteress? Talk about grasping.

He may have given permission for it. Considering all the concern over Bill Clinton's adultery, why do you think government officials could not be involved with the adulteress? Maybe she was someone important too.

Anyway I don't see an "LOL J/K!" at the end of John 19:6...:ahem:

Obsidian

March 30th 2009, 11:35 PM

John Goddard

March 30th 2009, 11:49 PM

I never claimed that your source made sense. You did. I'm starting to think that you just have very poor reading comprehension skills, because the Jewish Encyclopedia clearly is talking about all executions, or specifically the execution that actually took place -- i.e., a Roman execution.

It is about Jews participating in executions on Passover. Since of course Passover is a Jewish thing. It's not talking about non-Jewish Romans here.

According to the Synoptics, the date of his death was the 15th of Nisan (first day of Passover), when again no execution could be held (Mishnah Sanh. iv. 1; and the commentaries: Yer. Sanh. ii. 3; Yer. Beẓ. v. 2; Ket. i. 1). (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=905&letter=C)

Unless you think the priests and rabbis commanded Rome not to execute on Passover LOL.

Obsidian

March 31st 2009, 12:17 AM

*Sigh*

John Goddard

March 31st 2009, 03:13 AM

*Sigh*

Ditto that. :ahem:

Obsidian

March 31st 2009, 04:13 AM

How about a sign hanging at the top of Jesus's cross saying "King of the Jews...LOL JUST KIDDING." You are very simple-minded, indeed.

John Goddard

March 31st 2009, 04:23 AM

How about a sign hanging at the top of Jesus's cross saying "King of the Jews...LOL JUST KIDDING."

Well that's always an option if you say Pilate was being facetious about that one too.

You are very simple-minded, indeed.

I aim to please.

Sparko

March 31st 2009, 12:46 PM

...without Roman permission. They had it here:

John 19:6 ...Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

So what the Bible says above determines that they did have some permission and thus, they could have had it with the adulteress too.

Now you are just being stubborn and adding your own wishes to what is not there. When you think an external source is favorable to you, you feel it is authoritive enough to quote, and when that same source contradicts what you want to be true, you rationalize it and ignore what it says and read into the bible again. I am starting to think that you are not being objective here, and this point has something to do with your theology. You are not acting rationally.

If you think Pilate could give them "permission" to break Roman law, then it is up to you to prove it. That would be like a sheriff giving permission to a mob to lynch someone. It would not be legal. He was clearly not being serious.

I have provided two extrabiblical sources who both quoted the same contemporary source, and one of them was from YOUR OWN quoted source, and they all say that Rome did take away the right for capital punishment.

And the bible says they didn't have the right to execute:

John 18:31Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.

There were no qualifications given. If it were merely for the passover they could have said "We can't execute on (or near) the Passover" - or they could have just waited a few days, or arrested Jesus a few days earlier.

You are the one who is reaching here John. There is no evidence that you are right, everything we have found contradicts you.

John Goddard

March 31st 2009, 01:46 PM

And the bible says they didn't have the right to execute:

John 18:31 Pilate said, "Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law." "But we have no right to execute anyone," the Jews objected.

The context is according to Jewish Law, and they replied that it was unlawful under Jewish Law. You need to read it more carefully.

nomos nom'-os: law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), genitive case (regulation), specially, (of Moses (including the volume); also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle) -- law. (http://scripturetext.com/john/18-31.htm)

John 19:6 confirms that they would have a right under Roman Law since Pilate was in charge of Roman Law and gave his permission for them to execute.

Your idea has no biblical support and is reinforced by sloppy reading by many Christians over the years (nothing personal to you in other words), in contradiction to John 19:6 and the Mosaic context of the John 18:31 discussion. There's no way to state it any clearer.

Sparko

March 31st 2009, 07:28 PM

The context is according to Jewish Law, and they replied that it was unlawful under Jewish Law. You need to read it more carefully.

nomos nom'-os: law (through the idea of prescriptive usage), genitive case (regulation), specially, (of Moses (including the volume); also of the Gospel), or figuratively (a principle) -- law. (http://scripturetext.com/john/18-31.htm)

John 19:6 confirms that they would have a right under Roman Law since Pilate was in charge of Roman Law and gave his permission for them to execute.

Your idea has no biblical support and is reinforced by sloppy reading by many Christians over the years (nothing personal to you in other words), in contradiction to John 19:6 and the Mosaic context of the John 18:31 discussion. There's no way to state it any clearer.

John the only sloppy (and selective) reading going on here is by you. You have been given references contemporary with the time of the event, from the people who where affected by it. Your stubborness is noted. This is not worth any more of my time. The readers can judge for themselves who is the one with the sloppy reading skills.

the bible says they didn't have the right to execute
scholars in the area say the same thing
the jewish encyclopedia says the same thing
the Talmud written at the time of the events say the same thing.

The only one who denies it is YOU. :clueless:

so, go ahead and repeat yourself and have the last word.