Who agrees with Europe´s choice to ban the death penalty?

[dogtowner]

But the "render unto Caesar" story was not about the death penalty or corporeal/soul matters, it was about paying the imperial tax.


Matt 22

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

the example is a tax as the example in the stoning was perceived misbehavior.. the principle applies in any like situation not just the ones you choose.

 

[Pandora]

the example is a tax as the example in the stoning was perceived misbehavior.. the principle applies in any like situation not just the ones you choose.

If we are thinking about the same stoning story, did he not say who ever is without sin (meaning none of us) cast the first stone? And no one cast a stone, instead they all went away and he asks the woman where are her accusers and noted that no one was there to condemn her and neither did he condemn her.



The law was clear, she should have been stoned to death yet he worked things so the law did not prevail and the woman was not stoned and he did not have a problem with letting her live even though she did a crime that should have lead to her death. Why didn’t he use the Caesar line here if that line was about the death penalty exc?



John

8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”6 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. 7 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.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 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.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

 

[dogtowner]

If we are thinking about the same stoning story, did he not say who ever is without sin (meaning none of us) cast the first stone? And no one cast a stone, instead they all went away and he asks the woman where are her accusers and noted that no one was there to condemn her and neither did he condemn her.



The law was clear, she should have been stoned to death yet he worked things so the law did not prevail and the woman was not stoned and he did not have a problem with letting her live even though she did a crime that should have lead to her death. Why didn’t he use the Caesar line here if that line was about the death penalty exc?

And He completed the law as He was without sin so it was His job to do the judging.

I think making Himself the example is a lot more powerful than a line or two.

John

8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”6 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. 7 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.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 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.10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

He accepted the penalty of her sin upon Himself and so was she forgiven.

 

[Pandora]

And He completed the law as He was without sin so it was His job to do the judging. He accepted the penalty of her sin upon Himself and so was she forgiven.

I think making Himself the example is a lot more powerful than a line or two.

While I agree with you that he accepted the penalty for her sin. I disagree with you that this vs. leads you to that conclusion. Those conclusions come from other vs. surrounding his death, resurrection exc.



This vs. talked about forgiveness and mercy…





But let’s say you were right in what you are saying about this vs. how does that have anything to do with the original argument when you brought up this vs?



If the idea is that Jesus supported the death penalty and the basic laws of the land, why did he not let the woman be stoned to death? And if you feel it’s because he took her punishment then shouldn’t he also take everyone’s punishment? And if that is true then he couldn’t be for the death penalty.



And going back to the Caesar vs. If you believe that vs. was talking about death penalty issues as well as taxes and that Jesus was all for following the laws of the land, then why is he being so inconsistent by not doing that in this woman’s case.

 

[dogtowner]

While I agree with you that he accepted the penalty for her sin. I disagree with you that this vs. leads you to that conclusion. Those conclusions come from other vs. surrounding his death, resurrection exc.


This vs. talked about forgiveness and mercy…

in my mind this verse explains the impact of his completing the law and thereby holds the sole right to judge the hearts of us all. the Law of the Land in civil terms was Roman, in spiritual terms the Law.

But let’s say you were right in what you are saying about this vs. how does that have anything to do with the original argument when you brought up this vs?

If the idea is that Jesus supported the death penalty and the basic laws of the land, why did he not let the woman be stoned to death? And if you feel it’s because he took her punishment then shouldn’t he also take everyone’s punishment? And if that is true then he couldn’t be for the death penalty.


And going back to the Caesar vs. If you believe that vs. was talking about death penalty issues as well as taxes and that Jesus was all for following the laws of the land, then why is he being so inconsistent by not doing that in this woman’s case.

again highlighting the difference. her violation was spiritual in nature, not civil. His accusation was claiming to be the King thereby challenging Herrod's power and even that of Rome, in their argument a civil matter. we know of course that He was not interested in ruling the corporeal world but something a bit more important.

so He applied the New Covenant in the case of the woman and accepted the judgement of the civil authorith in the most compelling manner imaginable.

in short He was a different sort of King relative to his ancestor David.

 

[Pandora]

in my mind this verse explains the impact of his completing the law and thereby holds the sole right to judge the hearts of us all. the Law of the Land in civil terms was Roman, in spiritual terms the Law. I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I dont see Jesus promoting the death penalty in any of his teachings. Though I don't think anyone who believes in it or votes for it or even carries it out is in any trouble spiritually.








again highlighting the difference. her violation was spiritual in nature, not civil. His accusation was claiming to be the King thereby challenging Herrod's power and even that of Rome, in their argument a civil matter. we know of course that He was not interested in ruling the corporeal world but something a bit more important.

so He applied the New Covenant in the case of the woman and accepted the judgement of the civil authorith in the most compelling manner imaginable.

in short He was a different sort of King relative to his ancestor David.

You have an interesting way of looking at it. I dont think I could agree with you on the caesar vs. but I like the way you see the woman caught in sin vs.

 

[dogtowner]

You have an interesting way of looking at it. I dont think I could agree with you on the caesar vs. but I like the way you see the woman caught in sin vs.

fair enough