Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 8:58:59 GMT -5
No, it was about cheeks. He didn't say an eye for a cheek! Actually Jesus didn't oppose the eye for an eye stuff. He said "don't oppose it." If someone wants your eye...give him both! Matthew 5:38-48King James Version (KJV) 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. So why do we murder people who have committed murder then? It seems to be the opposite of what is said here. We do NOT murder people who commit murder. Murder is a crime. It is against the law. It is the "unlawful" killing of another person. Capital punishment, in the countries which allow it, is within the law. It is the lawful killing of another person convicted of a crime worthy of capital punishment. Murder is both unlawful and evil. Capital punishment is lawful and evil. However, the evil is a righteous punishment for an unrighteous and unlawful act worthy of that punishment. Evil is basically "bad" stuff, but not necessarily bad in the circumstances. One country invades another. The invasion is resisted by the armies of the invaded country. Bad, bad, bad. Evil, evil, evil. However, the invaded country has a right to resist evil with evil.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 11:40:51 GMT -5
So why do we murder people who have committed murder then? It seems to be the opposite of what is said here. Gen_9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Is there always a verse in the bible that contradicts anything good that is in there? Jesus was against retaliation.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 11:43:47 GMT -5
So why do we murder people who have committed murder then? It seems to be the opposite of what is said here. We do NOT murder people who commit murder. Murder is a crime. It is against the law. It is the "unlawful" killing of another person. Capital punishment, in the countries which allow it, is within the law. It is the lawful killing of another person convicted of a crime worthy of capital punishment. Murder is both unlawful and evil. Capital punishment is lawful and evil. However, the evil is a righteous punishment for an unrighteous and unlawful act worthy of that punishment. Evil is basically "bad" stuff, but not necessarily bad in the circumstances. One country invades another. The invasion is resisted by the armies of the invaded country. Bad, bad, bad. Evil, evil, evil. However, the invaded country has a right to resist evil with evil. I don't agree Ram. Just because some man made law says it's not murder doesn't mean it isn't. Killing another human in self defense is probably not murder, but planning to kill another human will always be murder imo. There are many ways to deal with someone who has committed murder without adding to the crime by murdering them too. Jesus said don't retaliate. So is self defense even defensible? According to Jesus anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 12:12:30 GMT -5
We do NOT murder people who commit murder. Murder is a crime. It is against the law. It is the "unlawful" killing of another person. Capital punishment, in the countries which allow it, is within the law. It is the lawful killing of another person convicted of a crime worthy of capital punishment. Murder is both unlawful and evil. Capital punishment is lawful and evil. However, the evil is a righteous punishment for an unrighteous and unlawful act worthy of that punishment. Evil is basically "bad" stuff, but not necessarily bad in the circumstances. One country invades another. The invasion is resisted by the armies of the invaded country. Bad, bad, bad. Evil, evil, evil. However, the invaded country has a right to resist evil with evil. I don't agree Ram. Just because some man made law says it's not murder doesn't mean it isn't. Killing another human in self defense is probably not murder, but planning to kill another human will always be murder imo. There are many ways to deal with someone who has committed murder without adding to the crime by murdering them too. Jesus said don't retaliate. So is self defense even defensible? According to Jesus anyway. I am just stating what the legal position is Snow. Capital punishment is not a crime if it is "legal" in the countries which allow it. You may not agree with the law, but you have to live by it! When Jesus said "don't retaliate" he was really speaking about personal injury/insults. Self defence, such as protecting one's family and country is Christian. Jesus himself said that if his Kingdom was of this World then his disciples would "fight," i.e. for his cause. Jesus recognised that the countries of this world would fight. He never told them not to. His Kingdom however, was NOT of this world. Christians are commanded to live peaceably with everyone, but they are to obey the callings and responsibilities of the countries they live in as though they were doing it for God, for there are no powers in the world that God does not have ultimate control over.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 12:34:32 GMT -5
I don't agree Ram. Just because some man made law says it's not murder doesn't mean it isn't. Killing another human in self defense is probably not murder, but planning to kill another human will always be murder imo. There are many ways to deal with someone who has committed murder without adding to the crime by murdering them too. Jesus said don't retaliate. So is self defense even defensible? According to Jesus anyway. I am just stating what the legal position is Snow. Capital punishment is not a crime if it is "legal" in the countries which allow it. You may not agree with the law, but you have to live by it! When Jesus said "don't retaliate" he was really speaking about personal injury/insults. Self defence, such as protecting one's family and country is Christian. Jesus himself said that if his Kingdom was of this World then his disciples would "fight," i.e. for his cause. Jesus recognised that the countries of this world would fight. He never told them not to. His Kingdom however, was NOT of this world. Christians are commanded to live peaceably with everyone, but they are to obey the callings and responsibilities of the countries they live in as though they were doing it for God, for there are no powers in the world that God does not have ultimate control over. I recognize it is lawful in some countries. I just don't agree with it. The actions of others should not be a good reason for us to stoop to that level imo. I do realize that it is sometimes unavoidable to kill to defend ourselves, family or country. In the case of murders though, we do have other options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 12:39:06 GMT -5
I am just stating what the legal position is Snow. Capital punishment is not a crime if it is "legal" in the countries which allow it. You may not agree with the law, but you have to live by it! When Jesus said "don't retaliate" he was really speaking about personal injury/insults. Self defence, such as protecting one's family and country is Christian. Jesus himself said that if his Kingdom was of this World then his disciples would "fight," i.e. for his cause. Jesus recognised that the countries of this world would fight. He never told them not to. His Kingdom however, was NOT of this world. Christians are commanded to live peaceably with everyone, but they are to obey the callings and responsibilities of the countries they live in as though they were doing it for God, for there are no powers in the world that God does not have ultimate control over. I recognize it is lawful in some countries. I just don't agree with it. The actions of others should not be a good reason for us to stoop to that level imo. I do realize that it is sometimes unavoidable to kill to defend ourselves, family or country. In the case of murders though, we do have other options. Well Snow, some people agree with the death penalty and others do not. Yes there are other options. In one case they sprung a murderer from jail and crucified an innocent man in his place! That's one option I agree with. It has given my soul, worthy of death, a chance of life!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 12:53:09 GMT -5
I recognize it is lawful in some countries. I just don't agree with it. The actions of others should not be a good reason for us to stoop to that level imo. I do realize that it is sometimes unavoidable to kill to defend ourselves, family or country. In the case of murders though, we do have other options. Well Snow, some people agree with the death penalty and others do not. Yes there are other options. In one case they sprung a murderer from jail and crucified an innocent man in his place! That's one option I agree with. It has given my soul, worthy of death, a chance of life! Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Really?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 12:55:30 GMT -5
Well Snow, some people agree with the death penalty and others do not. Yes there are other options. In one case they sprung a murderer from jail and crucified an innocent man in his place! That's one option I agree with. It has given my soul, worthy of death, a chance of life! Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Really? I did not have *impression" in mind. I thought we were talking about "options?"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 12:59:41 GMT -5
Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Really? I did not have *impression" in mind. I thought we were talking about "options?" Killing an innocent man instead of the one who committed murder is not a viable option. I recognize that you are referring to Jesus here and how happy you are that he got killed instead of the one who deserved it, but maybe you should also look into that story. It was never a practice by the Romans to give the Jews one of their own back after committing a crime as is stated in the bible. So no one was let lose in place of Jesus. Just so you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 13:03:12 GMT -5
I did not have *impression" in mind. I thought we were talking about "options?" Killing an innocent man instead of the one who committed murder is not a viable option. I recognize that you are referring to Jesus here and how happy you are that he got killed instead of the one who deserved it, but maybe you should also look into that story. It was never a practice by the Romans to give the Jews one of their own back after committing a crime as is stated in the bible. So no one was let lose in place of Jesus. Just so you know. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/52523/BarabbasOkay, the Jews chose to spring a murderer in place of an innocent man. It was still an "option!"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 13:18:05 GMT -5
Killing an innocent man instead of the one who committed murder is not a viable option. I recognize that you are referring to Jesus here and how happy you are that he got killed instead of the one who deserved it, but maybe you should also look into that story. It was never a practice by the Romans to give the Jews one of their own back after committing a crime as is stated in the bible. So no one was let lose in place of Jesus. Just so you know. www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/52523/BarabbasOkay, the Jews chose to spring a murderer in place of an innocent man. It was still an "option!" The story is not accurate. No custom of releasing prisoners in Jerusalem at Passover or any other time is recorded in any historical document other than the gospels. The Romans simply did not do that. Jesus was likely crucified for treason. If he hadn't overturned the money tables in the temple that provided not just the temple priests with money, but also the Romans, they probably would have left him alone. Challenging their right to an income would be considered treason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 13:31:56 GMT -5
The story is not accurate. No custom of releasing prisoners in Jerusalem at Passover or any other time is recorded in any historical document other than the gospels. The Romans simply did not do that. Jesus was likely crucified for treason. If he hadn't overturned the money tables in the temple that provided not just the temple priests with money, but also the Romans, they probably would have left him alone. Challenging their right to an income would be considered treason. Well if the account is nowhere recorded other than the Gospels, it does not automatically follow that the account inaccurate. Treason had nothing to do with it. The Prosecutor saw that Jesus was innocent. Pilate's big mistake was ignoring his wife and listening to the crowd. It was religious jealousy that swung the motion! Matt. 27:
11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.In support of your argument however: "There is no record outside of Christian sources that Pilate regularly or ever released a prisoner at the time of the Passover festival or any other festival in the realm of his jurisdiction. Moreover, the accounts of the severity with which he governed suggest that such an act, under any circumstances, would be highly unlikely. There is, on the other hand, evidence that legates and prefects, at times, did release prisoners." From the passages I quoted above, it is obvious that Pilate was looking for a way out (especially with his wife nipping his head!). These were unique circumstances for Pilate, condemning a man he obviously knew was innocent. It is reasonable to assume in the circumstances he knew of prisoners being released by others with legal authority, no doubt based on possible innocence, and chose to follow the same route, probably even expecting the crowd to take the same way out? Just goes to show. A man should listen to his wife!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 14:13:49 GMT -5
The story is not accurate. No custom of releasing prisoners in Jerusalem at Passover or any other time is recorded in any historical document other than the gospels. The Romans simply did not do that. Jesus was likely crucified for treason. If he hadn't overturned the money tables in the temple that provided not just the temple priests with money, but also the Romans, they probably would have left him alone. Challenging their right to an income would be considered treason. Well if the account is nowhere recorded other than the Gospels, it does not automatically follow that the account inaccurate. Treason had nothing to do with it. The Prosecutor saw that Jesus was innocent. Pilate's big mistake was ignoring his wife and listening to the crowd. It was religious jealousy that swung the motion! Matt. 27:
11 And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.
12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
13 Then said Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
14 And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.In support of your argument however: "There is no record outside of Christian sources that Pilate regularly or ever released a prisoner at the time of the Passover festival or any other festival in the realm of his jurisdiction. Moreover, the accounts of the severity with which he governed suggest that such an act, under any circumstances, would be highly unlikely. There is, on the other hand, evidence that legates and prefects, at times, did release prisoners." From the passages I quoted above, it is obvious that Pilate was looking for a way out (especially with his wife nipping his head!). These were unique circumstances for Pilate, condemning a man he obviously knew was innocent. It is reasonable to assume in the circumstances he knew of prisoners being released by others with legal authority, no doubt based on possible innocence, and chose to follow the same route, probably even expecting the crowd to take the same way out? Just goes to show. A man should listen to his wife! A man should listen to his wife. Well yes, but in this case I'm sure Pilate rarely would listen to her regarding his prisoners. He was a brutal man. It's not likely at all that he would have even seen Jesus, and if he did it would only be to pass sentence. The belief in this story has given Christians the justification for antisemitism. They blame them for the killing of their God. That was the reason Hitler had it in for them. So I think it is sad that this story has been passed down as true because the likelihood of Pilate ever doing what is said in the gospels is pretty much nil. I'm not saying that it wasn't the Sanhedrin that brought Jesus to the Romans attention, and in that way likely did contribute to his death, but it is highly unlikely Barabbas was part of the story. We have to remember that the gospels were written to espouse a certain belief and story and in doing that it wasn't necessary for it always to be true. It's just the way the story was told, trying to get their message across.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 15:46:15 GMT -5
A man should listen to his wife. Well yes, but in this case I'm sure Pilate rarely would listen to her regarding his prisoners. He was a brutal man. It's not likely at all that he would have even seen Jesus, and if he did it would only be to pass sentence. The belief in this story has given Christians the justification for antisemitism. They blame them for the killing of their God. That was the reason Hitler had it in for them. So I think it is sad that this story has been passed down as true because the likelihood of Pilate ever doing what is said in the gospels is pretty much nil. I'm not saying that it wasn't the Sanhedrin that brought Jesus to the Romans attention, and in that way likely did contribute to his death, but it is highly unlikely Barabbas was part of the story. We have to remember that the gospels were written to espouse a certain belief and story and in doing that it wasn't necessary for it always to be true. It's just the way the story was told, trying to get their message across.
Well now...what is one person's fantasy is another person's truth!
I don't mind if I'm living in a fantasy world. As Bert says...."Don't expect Bhutanese monkeys to eat rice!"
That kinda sums it up for me!
ps Do you honestly think Gospel writers would make this kind of story up considering Pilate's wife was involved!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 16:55:45 GMT -5
A man should listen to his wife. Well yes, but in this case I'm sure Pilate rarely would listen to her regarding his prisoners. He was a brutal man. It's not likely at all that he would have even seen Jesus, and if he did it would only be to pass sentence. The belief in this story has given Christians the justification for antisemitism. They blame them for the killing of their God. That was the reason Hitler had it in for them. So I think it is sad that this story has been passed down as true because the likelihood of Pilate ever doing what is said in the gospels is pretty much nil. I'm not saying that it wasn't the Sanhedrin that brought Jesus to the Romans attention, and in that way likely did contribute to his death, but it is highly unlikely Barabbas was part of the story. We have to remember that the gospels were written to espouse a certain belief and story and in doing that it wasn't necessary for it always to be true. It's just the way the story was told, trying to get their message across.Well now...what is one person's fantasy is another person's truth! I don't mind if I'm living in a fantasy world. As Bert says.... "Don't expect Bhutanese monkeys to eat rice!"That kinda sums it up for me! ps Do you honestly think Gospel writers would make this kind of story up considering Pilate's wife was involved! I don't know, they had to be very brave but then we know Christians are martyrs so, maybe?
|
|