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

  • #31
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I don't believe that the "sinners" were generally called that because they were committing stonable offenses. They were called that by the purist Pharisees because they weren't sufficiently concerned with ritual purity in their eyes AFAICS.
    OK, well the verse in question is Mar 2:15-17

    While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

    I suppose it doesn't specify why they are sinners as such, but I would have thought that not adhering to ritual purity wouldn't count since that was not considered to be a sin by the writers.
    “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


    • #32
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      I don't see tax collectors or prostitutes under the 'need to be stoned' list.
      Well there seems to be a challenge that pre-marital sex isn't covered by the use of the word adultery under Hebrew. I always thought pre-marital sex was considered a sin because of this very distinction.

      I don't think I am doing very good here. A lot of what I thought I knew before seems to be getting challenged as being wrong.

      EDIT: Anyway time for bed for me I think. I'll pick this up tomorrow. Hopefully some more people with post.
      Last edited by Darth Ovious; 05-07-2015, 05:23 PM.
      “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


      • #33
        Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
        Well there seems to be a challenge that pre-marital sex isn't covered by the use of the word adultery under Hebrew. I always thought pre-marital sex was considered a sin because of this very distinction.
        Eh, I'm not certain about the Hebrew or the social facts but I'd wager that most prostitutes did what they did in order to survive, which is different from the normal selfish lust-fueled adultery.

        Comment


        • #34
          Deuteronomy 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.

          Stoning is a good way to execute people, because it requires the witnesses and observers to be sure enough of guilt that they are willing to personally kill the defendant.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
            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?
            The Samaritan woman at the well may have been an adulterer.

            Source: John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Academic, Dec 1, 2004

            If the TNIV rendering, "five husbands," is correct, then the woman found herself in conflict with Jewish law (contra Wescott 1908: 1.154), since rabbis generally disapproved of more than three legal marriages in a lifetime, even in case of the death of previous husbands (b. Yebam. 64b; cf. Nid. 64a). However, it is perhaps more likely that this is another instance of a wordplay (a possibility not considered by Keener 2003: 605-8), here involving the word ανηρ (aner), which can mean either "man" or "husband." If so, Jesus may be telling the woman that she has had five "men" (with whom she lived in fornication) and that the one she is now living with is not her "man," that is, husband (though he may be that of another woman: note the emphatic position of "your" in the Greek). In other words, the woman is a serial fornicator (see Giblin 1999).

            © Copyright Original Source



            At the request of the Samaritans, Jesus then stays with them for two days.

            Scholars believe that the sinner in Luke 7 who anointed Jesus feet was likely a prostitute.

            Source: Luke (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series) by Craig A. Evans, Baker Books, Aug 1, 2011

            7:37 / a woman who had lived a sinful life: Lit. "a woman who was a sinner." It is likely this woman had been a prostitute, although adultery could be in view.

            © Copyright Original Source



            (also see Leon Morris' commentary on Luke and Joel Green's commentary also on Luke, as well as Ben Witherington's Women and the Genesis of Christianity for more on the female sinner likely being a prostitute)

            Though in ancient Israel prostitution was considered a lesser offence than adultery, they were still considered unclean and to be avoided. Sometimes adultery and prostitution are used synonymously for the sinful state of a people (as we see in Isaiah 57:3, Hosea 4:14, and other passages).

            I agree with OBP that we are under a New Covenant, not the Old. The New Covenant is one of grace. Stoning people to death for adultery was part and parcel of the civil code under Israel's theocracy. Christians won't see a God-ordained theocracy again until Christ's return. The NT seems to make it clear in a number of places that when we make Christ Lord we are no longer under the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law, but of the moral and spiritual aspects of the law.

            Comment


            • #36
              There are arguments that the verses from John 8 are interpolations too.
              Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? -Galatians 3:5

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                Eh, I'm not certain about the Hebrew or the social facts but I'd wager that most prostitutes did what they did in order to survive, which is different from the normal selfish lust-fueled adultery.
                There is that difference in the reasons why they would do 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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  The Samaritan woman at the well may have been an adulterer.

                  Source: John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Baker Academic, Dec 1, 2004

                  If the TNIV rendering, "five husbands," is correct, then the woman found herself in conflict with Jewish law (contra Wescott 1908: 1.154), since rabbis generally disapproved of more than three legal marriages in a lifetime, even in case of the death of previous husbands (b. Yebam. 64b; cf. Nid. 64a). However, it is perhaps more likely that this is another instance of a wordplay (a possibility not considered by Keener 2003: 605-8), here involving the word ανηρ (aner), which can mean either "man" or "husband." If so, Jesus may be telling the woman that she has had five "men" (with whom she lived in fornication) and that the one she is now living with is not her "man," that is, husband (though he may be that of another woman: note the emphatic position of "your" in the Greek). In other words, the woman is a serial fornicator (see Giblin 1999).

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  At the request of the Samaritans, Jesus then stays with them for two days.

                  Scholars believe that the sinner in Luke 7 who anointed Jesus feet was likely a prostitute.

                  Source: Luke (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series) by Craig A. Evans, Baker Books, Aug 1, 2011

                  7:37 / a woman who had lived a sinful life: Lit. "a woman who was a sinner." It is likely this woman had been a prostitute, although adultery could be in view.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  (also see Leon Morris' commentary on Luke and Joel Green's commentary also on Luke, as well as Ben Witherington's Women and the Genesis of Christianity for more on the female sinner likely being a prostitute)

                  Though in ancient Israel prostitution was considered a lesser offence than adultery, they were still considered unclean and to be avoided. Sometimes adultery and prostitution are used synonymously for the sinful state of a people (as we see in Isaiah 57:3, Hosea 4:14, and other passages).

                  I agree with OBP that we are under a New Covenant, not the Old. The New Covenant is one of grace. Stoning people to death for adultery was part and parcel of the civil code under Israel's theocracy. Christians won't see a God-ordained theocracy again until Christ's return. The NT seems to make it clear in a number of places that when we make Christ Lord we are no longer under the civil and ceremonial aspects of the law, but of the moral and spiritual aspects of the law.
                  Thank you for you response Adrift. I guess I should make time over the weekend to look at the commentary you've listed.
                  “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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                    OK, well the verse in question is Mar 2:15-17

                    While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

                    I suppose it doesn't specify why they are sinners as such, but I would have thought that not adhering to ritual purity wouldn't count since that was not considered to be a sin by the writers.
                    The writers are reporting what the Pharisees said, not their own beliefs. There was at least a subset of Pharisees who refused to eat with ha'aretz because they were not sufficiently concerned with ritual purity.
                    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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                      The writers are reporting what the Pharisees said, not their own beliefs. There was at least a subset of Pharisees who refused to eat with ha'aretz because they were not sufficiently concerned with ritual purity.
                      Does Jesus deny the charge against him though? He seems to confirm that it's the sinners he has come to save. Do you think he was talking specifically in regards to spiritual purity with he said there?
                      “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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                        Does Jesus deny the charge against him though? He seems to confirm that it's the sinners he has come to save. Do you think he was talking specifically in regards to spiritual purity with he said there?
                        All have sinned(except Jesus, obviously). The pharisees wouldn't admit to also being sinners.
                        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                          All have sinned(except Jesus, obviously). The pharisees wouldn't admit to also being sinners.
                          Ah I see, my question in regards to Jesus hanging around with "sinners" is redundant since we are all sinners anyway. On the other hand what does this mean? For instance when Jesus talks about sexual immorality he also includes sexual thoughts under that banner. Thus under that guidance this is a rule very easy to break and I would have thought those he was with would likely to be guilty of it.
                          Last edited by Darth Ovious; 05-08-2015, 08:51 AM. Reason: Clarity
                          “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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Pentecost View Post
                            There are arguments that the verses from John 8 are interpolations too.
                            I agree. I think it probably does reflect an authentic event but because the earliest manuscripts don't have the passage it's safest not to firmly base any doctrine on it.
                            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                              I agree. I think it probably does reflect an authentic event but because the earliest manuscripts don't have the passage it's safest not to firmly base any doctrine on it.
                              Well it's interesting I suppose. It depends on your view on the Bible and whether you think all the passages are influenced by God or not. i.e. How much stock do you put into that the Bible is written by God through the hands of others.
                              “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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                The writers are reporting what the Pharisees said, not their own beliefs. There was at least a subset of Pharisees who refused to eat with ha'aretz because they were not sufficiently concerned with ritual purity.
                                I think you're right that this passage presents "sinners" from the perspective of religious purists, but I think it'd be wrong to say that the people Jesus dined with were not, in fact, sinners at all. Their sins may or may not have been stonable offences, but they were sinful people (as we all are). The power of this passage comes from the knowledge that we can all come to Christ in our present state and that he will accept us and forgive us when we repent. Larry Hurtado digs into this passage in his commentary on Mark,

                                Source: Mark (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series) by Larry W. Hurtado, Baker Books, 2011

                                The next scene depicts Jesus and his disciples eating with many tax collectors and "sinners" (v. 15; see note). These "sinners" were people known for their failure to live by the religious law of Judaism, apparently in some major matters. We must understand that generally in the ancient Near Eastern lands sharing a meal was considered a significant and even an intimate social contact, establishing a bond among those who partook. Among ancient religious Jews, eating with a person implied religious acceptance of that person. There is every reason to believe that Jesus shared this view and that his eating with these "sinners" was intended to signify and to communicate acceptance of them and forgiveness of their sins. Jesus' reply to the criticism of his action shows that his association with such sinners was a studied policy (v. 17). Most scholars believe that the early Christian practice of a common meal as a chief symbol of their fellowship (upon such a common meal our modern Lord's supper, or Eucharist, practices are based) derived not only from a Last Supper (such as is described in 14:12-26) but also from Jesus' practice of eating with sinners as a sign of their acceptance.

                                In the narrative, the teachers of the law are joined with Pharisees (see note), and the complaint is that Jesus sets a bad example as a holy man by welcoming known sinners into his circle. In the minds of these critics, Jesus should have disassociated himself publicly from such sinners and should have summoned them to repentance and study of the religious law as a precondition for any social acceptance. These critics were desirous of upholding a religious standard and of chastening and perhaps reforming transgressors. Jesus' mission was the proclamation and bestowal of God's new salvation and merciful welcome. These critics probably believed that obedience to the religious law was a precondition for the arrival of the kingdom of God. Jesus was convinced with prophet-like assurance that God's kingdom would come to a sinful Israel by God's free and gracious initiative and that he was the herald of its imminent arrival. Indeed, he probably saw his own ministry as the opening event of this divine initiative. What better way, in Jesus' mind, to demonstrate that God's kingdom comes by divine grace and initiative and does not wait for a program of religious reform of Israel than by going to those well known as sinners and welcoming them to divine favor?

                                But, of course, Jesus' prophetic conviction that God's new salvation was at hand and that he was chosen to demonstrate it was not shared by many religious leaders, and so his conduct only generated disgust and offense among these opponents. This story and the preceding one in 2:1-12 are linked together in showing how Jesus' striking actions generated great opposition. The actions in view are really very similar, the forgiveness of sins and the welcome of sinners, and both are based upon Jesus' fundamental conviction about what he has been chosen to do--to demonstrate the arrival of God's kingdom. There is probably intended sarcasm in Jesus' statement in verse 17; otherwise Jesus is made to speak like a "do-gooder" or a social reformer himself. The critics probably saw themselves as healthy and in no need of a doctor, as righteous and not sinners, and Jesus in effect says, "If you have no need of God's mercy (tongue in cheek here!), then, excuse me, I would like to get on with my work!"

                                No doubt, in the gentile churches among which Mark first circulated, this kind of story was seen as precedent for the ingathering of Gentiles (who were also seen as sinners/outcasts by many religious Jews) and showed Jesus as the pioneer of this welcome of religiously unacceptable people.

                                Additional Notes

                                2:15..."Sinners" were people probably publicly known by their failure to observe religious practices and so, in the minds of the Pharisees (and the general Jewish public as well), they were perceived as irreligious and disgraceful. The Greek term used here reflects the cause of their rejection by the religiously upstanding people. Their sins may have included not only a lack of observance of religious scruples but also such things as fraud or adultery, as shown in the case of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), who was probably guilty of cheating, and that of the woman of Luke 7:36-50.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                (all emphasis in the original)
                                Last edited by Adrift; 05-08-2015, 09:17 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, 07-16-2021, 05:27 PM
                                79 responses
                                553 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Started by tabibito, 06-27-2021, 01:47 AM
                                85 responses
                                442 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Faber, 05-31-2021, 05:09 PM
                                52 responses
                                237 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Faber
                                by Faber
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 04-01-2021, 10:22 AM
                                24 responses
                                235 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post ReformedApologist  
                                Started by mossrose, 02-21-2021, 12:08 PM
                                171 responses
                                1,228 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post NorrinRadd  
                                Working...
                                X