Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Stoning to death in the OT and the situation now after the NT.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stoning to death in the OT and the situation now after the NT.

    So I've been in a conversation in another thread in regards to the laws in the Old Testament using stoning as a punishment for breaking the moral laws in the Old Testament. My view on this was that the stoning was a legal law that was applied to a moral law but the challenge has been made that the stoning was part of the moral law and divine law. I'm looking for clarification on this and what reasons people have for their points of view.

    In regards to the OT we have as an example:

    Lev 20:10

    And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


    In the new testament we have the situation where the Pharisee's confront Jesus with an adulterous women and his then his response.

    John 8:3 to 8:11

    The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

    So what does this mean for Christians exactly?

    Do we still advocate stoning people for breaking moral laws?

    Was it overturned by Jesus in the NT?

    The thread in question where this topic arose was this one:

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...arents!/page13

    Discussion between Paprika and I to start off with and then Darth Executor and Seer make contributions too.
    “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

  • #2
    Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
    My personal view was always that it was OK in the extreme kind of environment that the Israelites lived in during Leviticus but became redundant as civilisation became more established and jail cells became an available form of punishment.
    I thought so too but I've since reconsidered. The breakdown of the western family has been disastrous and tolerance is one of the heads of the Cerberus of civilization collapse.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      I thought so too but I've since reconsidered. The breakdown of the western family has been disastrous and tolerance is one of the heads of the Cerberus of civilization collapse.
      OK, so you are advocating to not be tolerant about these sort of things anymore. In terms of punishment what would you say is adequate? Is the death penalty for such sins an option or do you think jail terms are efficient or perhaps something different?
      “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm in the reconsidering camp. If the Law was good and God-given then it should be reasonable that behind each law there's a certain logic to it.

        Which may not mean that death penalty is warranted, but criminalisation within a Christian society? I'm not sure I can rule that out.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
          OK, so you are advocating to not be tolerant about these sort of things anymore. In terms of punishment what would you say is adequate? Is the death penalty for such sins an option or do you think jail terms are efficient or perhaps something different?
          I think death is generally appropriate. I'm willing to consider alternative punishments if the individuals in question confess.

          Also, the issue isn't the sin, the issue is that adultery is very bad regardless of whether it's a sin or not. I don't think the law should punish all sins, and respectively I'd think adultery deserves death even if I wasn't a Christian.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            I'm in the reconsidering camp. If the Law was good and God-given then it should be reasonable that behind each law there's a certain logic to it.

            Which may not mean that death penalty is warranted, but criminalisation within a Christian society? I'm not sure I can rule that out.
            Well I still think that breaking the commandments is sinful, but I'm just trying to get my head around this in terms of punishment. Do we still advocate stoning? or perhaps a different punishment? I'm just trying to get my head around it.
            “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

            Comment


            • #7
              Christians are under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant established with Moses. The Law was not overturned, but superseded.

              Like the question on paying taxes, this was a trap question sprung on Jesus; a yes response would get him in trouble with the Romans (since the Jews couldn't levy capital punishment at the time), whereas a no response would be against the Torah.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                Well I still think that breaking the commandments is sinful, but I'm just trying to get my head around this in terms of punishment. Do we still advocate stoning? or perhaps a different punishment? I'm just trying to get my head around it.
                I think the first question that should be asked is: why did God command killing? Other legal punishments were available that didn't include jail, including the forty lashes minus one.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What about paying ransoms?
                  "Some people feel guilty about their anxieties and regard them as a defect of faith but they are afflictions, not sins. Like all afflictions, they are, if we can so take them, our share in the passion of Christ." - That Guy Everyone Quotes

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                    I think death is generally appropriate. I'm willing to consider alternative punishments if the individuals in question confess.
                    I am going to be honest here and say that this is something difficult to swallow as such and I do confess for other reasons rather than scriptural reasons.

                    Also, the issue isn't the sin, the issue is that adultery is very bad regardless of whether it's a sin or not. I don't think the law should punish all sins, and respectively I'd think adultery deserves death even if I wasn't a Christian.
                    I agree that adultery is bad. As I said above though I would consciously have a difficult time giving adulterers the death penalty though. Can I ask on your view in terms of Jesus keeping company with adulterers and sinners? I just want more clarification here in regards to how this meshes together with Jesus' example.
                    “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by hamster View Post
                      What about paying ransoms?
                      Elite degeneracy tends to flow down from the top. In Israel it was a bit different since their elites would have mostly been priests, prophets, etc. Or kings chosen by God. For us it's usually movie stars and billionaires who usually have no status to lose by acting in a degenerate manner. So letting them buy their way into degeneracy is undesirable. This is probably getting a bit off topic, but I think the rich should be taxed in part by the morality they display, not just income bracket.
                      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        I'm in the reconsidering camp. If the Law was good and God-given then it should be reasonable that behind each law there's a certain logic to it.

                        Which may not mean that death penalty is warranted, but criminalisation within a Christian society? I'm not sure I can rule that out.
                        I didn't make it clear that this was about homosexual acts. But adultery? Has to be criminalised.

                        It's late so I'll go through the rest of Lev 20 if necessary, but I think especially you who live in the West can see what the havoc that is wrecked when marriage and the family is trivialised, which should demand rethinking over the decriminalisation of adultery, for example.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Christians are under the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant established with Moses. The Law was not overturned, but superseded.
                          OK, thanks for posting. I did state a personal opinion for the change between covenants as Darth Executor has now posted into here, which I should probably thank him for.

                          Like the question on paying taxes, this was a trap question sprung on Jesus; a yes response would get him in trouble with the Romans (since the Jews couldn't levy capital punishment at the time), whereas a no response would be against the Torah.
                          Indeed, but I always thought there was an underlying meaning to what he said as a lesson to be taught. I always thought before that his response to get the Pharisee's questioning themselves. Jewish thought was that no man was without sin, so to then say to the Pharisee's that only those without sin can cast the first stone was a teaching to say that if you want to condemn someone for sin then first look in the mirror.
                          “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                            Can I ask on your view in terms of Jesus keeping company with adulterers and sinners?
                            Which verse did you have in mind? I don't remember (and can't find) anything about Jesus keeping company with adulterers.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              I think the first question that should be asked is: why did God command killing? Other legal punishments were available that didn't include jail, including the forty lashes minus one.
                              True, other punishments were available. The difference though is that Jail or the death penalty remove that threat from society. Lashes do not. So there is that fundamental difference between the punishments.
                              “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seer, 10-21-2020, 12:37 PM
                              2 responses
                              45 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Faber, 10-13-2020, 03:13 PM
                              4 responses
                              27 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Faber
                              by Faber
                               
                              Started by Christian3, 10-09-2020, 08:37 AM
                              33 responses
                              194 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Andius
                              by Andius
                               
                              Started by mossrose, 10-07-2020, 08:10 PM
                              6 responses
                              36 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mossrose  
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 09-26-2020, 07:50 PM
                              0 responses
                              6 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Working...
                              X