Originally posted by Darth Executor
View Post
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
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
-
“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
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostTrue, 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.
Are social orders so different now? Have they become unaffected by the disorder created by deviant sexual behaviours and adultery?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Postadultery under Jewish terms meant sex outside of marriage."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
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostSo 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.
This is my take. If a society decided to execute an adulterer, or a rapist, or a homosexual that would not be unjust, there are behaviors worthy of death:
Romans 1:
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostI thought that Mary was a prostitute and that adultery under Jewish terms meant sex outside of marriage.If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
To answer the covenant question, I don't think the new covenant has much bearing on lawmaking. Jesus did not set up an earthly kingdom and otherwise had little to say on how to run one. I also don't think the new covenant shifted God's morality, so His hatred of adultery still stands (and Jesus confirms as much)."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
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostRight, so we can infer that the death penalties were for crimes that posed a great danger to the social order.
Are social orders so different now? Have they become unaffected by the disorder created by deviant sexual behaviours and adultery?“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
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostIt doesn't. Only exception I can think of is claiming virginity and lying about it.
EDIT: So I take it that this means that the commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery" doesn't cover pre-marital sex? Or does it.Last edited by Darth Ovious; 05-07-2015, 03:43 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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThis is my take. If a society decided to execute an adulterer, or a rapist, or a homosexual that would not be unjust, there are behaviors worthy of death:
But it also would not be merciful, and we should lean towards being merciful - if possible...“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
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostThe idea that Mary Magdalen was a prostitute comes from the medieval period. Not from the Bible.“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
-
don't technically all sins kill you?"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
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostMary of Bethany was considered a prostitute, but then I suppose she wasn't in the company of Jesus as such.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
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostMary of Bethany was considered a prostitute because she was equated with Mary Magdalene, AFAICS.
In that case I think my question needs to be rephrased in that context then. How do people mesh the passage that Jesus ate with sinners along with the OT laws in regards to stoning?“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
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostOK, I must have gained this idea somehow then and I think Andrew Llyod Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar is to blame then. In that she is shown as a prostitute or at least she looks like she is being depicted as one. At least in the shown I saw. I think I never really questioned it because of the passage that said Jesus did associate with sinners when he ate with them.
In that case I think my question needs to be rephrased in that context then. How do people mesh the passage that Jesus ate with sinners along with the OT laws in regards to stoning?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
-
Originally posted by Darth Ovious View PostIn that case I think my question needs to be rephrased in that context then. How do people mesh the passage that Jesus ate with sinners along with the OT laws in regards to stoning?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
166 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
|
4 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 04:26 PM | ||
Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
|
10 responses
119 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by mikewhitney
03-13-2024, 06:38 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
|
14 responses
71 views
3 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-01-2024, 09:15 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
|
13 responses
59 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-01-2024, 07:26 AM
|
Comment