A Biblical Case for the Death Penalty

[Sasun]

Orthodoxy and Apostolic are two different beasts entirely.

 

Now, aside from the initial war against the pagans of Armenia (for good or ill, is still being debated), name whose blood the Apostolic Church has shed for itself. Go ahead.

If I may answer, that would be the blood of sectarians, namely Tondrakians, Pavlikians (and some others whose names I forget).

[KnightOfArmenia]

Actually, the only time the Armenian church has ever stood completely against any form of heresy was against the Arian heresy, and, later, the Nestorians. The first was banned in Armenia, the second (which was, according to some texts, created by an Armenian), never fully banned, but frowned upon and eventually removed from the country. We didn't have an inquisition, or anything even resembling it.

 

As to your cow remark, I don't even know how to answer. It seems that cow is the only thing that you know from other religions.

 

Ten bucks says I know about more world religions, and more ABOUT those world religions, than you do. You're obviously referring to Hindu, which holds the cow as a sacred beast; the fact that this is what came to your mind, rather than simply the fact that I was going for the obvious absurd, says something about your psychological makeup, you know.

 

And you obviously did not understand my point. And my reasons are as follows:

 

I just don't see how those accepted dogmas are related to the spirit of what Jesus has said.

 

Those dogmas came from the people that Christ gave the sovereign authority of SETTING dogma to; folks such as Peter, Thaddeus, etc. Paul, or Saul, as he was known before his conversion, was not one of the original Apostles, so it is debated whether he had any right to set doctrine. But, for Catholics, for example, the Papacy has the right to set doctrine because they come from the line of Peter, who was given authority by Christ (the "any laws you set on Earth, I shall honor in Heaven" clause). That you can ignore dogma means you are ignoring those who Christ specifically appointed to the task.

 

The dogmas are telling me I MUST believe in this and that, I must behave in this and that way - none of them directly follows from Christs word.

 

And the crux of the matter, and why you had no understanding of my previous posts. "Christs word" (sp) that you read is what church elders present as the writings of the students of the followers of Christ. Jesus Christ did not, and I repeat, NOT write the New Testament, or ANYTHING. He wrote NOTHING. Neither did the Apostles. And of what we do have, most, if not all, was edited in the Council of Chalcedon, and other meetings between the various churches. This is fact, it is known. Apocryphal things were removed, stories that the elders felt were not right or did not present the "true" view of Christianity (stories that were almost comic in some cases, such as Peter talking to the lion who wanted to become a Christian and was baptised, and later did not eat him in the Roman colliseum; the elders felt that baptismal and Christianity were too important to be given to animals).

 

Apparently the term "Christ" seems to overwhelm you here; it's not a new concept. Everything we know about Socrates, for example, comes from what his students have written about him, since he wrote nothing himself (he was, in fact, illiterate). Plato (the scholar) and Xenophon (the soldier) were his two best students; oddly enough, they wrote completely different tales about Socrates, so much so, in fact, that they seem to be writing about two completely different people. And these were first person accounts, written by people who had studied under Socrates for years. The New Testament is written by people who had never even MET Jesus Christ. Do you understand that? Everything you gleam, or believe you gleam, about Christ, could just as easily be absolutely wrong.

 

I prefer to read the Bible myself and have my own understanding of Christ.

 

Read the above.

 

I prefer to learn from other major religions. They are not about the person called Jesus, but they are about the same God represented by Christ.

 

Oh, are they? Hinduism is about the same God, eh? And many others as well, since it is a polytheistic religion. Ahh, that kind of runs afoul with the "do not worship false gods" rule that God set down, doesn't it?

 

Or what about Confucianism, which is based on ancestor worship, emperor worship, and absolute discipline, to the point where the oldest male of the family has absolute control over everyone in the family, up to and including killing any of them at will.

 

Or maybe you meant Shinto, the emperor worship of Japan? I know that when I think of God Almighty, the first thing that pops into my head is the current incarnation of the Sun God, sitting upon the Chrysanthemum Throne in Kyoto and speaking to his subjects through the Voice of the Crane.

 

Should I keep going? The ritual female circumcision of Africa? Or how about the Celtic nature-worship, so often lauded now because it was "eco-friendly," which encouraged, and, in fact, demanded human sacrifice, including the sacrifice of infants, to appease the spirits of the earth. Or the head-hunting faiths of the Pacific Islanders?

 

By "world religions," you mean 1, at most 2 or 3 religions. Buddhism (almost surely), and maybe Islam, or Hindu. Buddhism, despite the common Hollywood "vibe" attached to it to make it cool, is Hindu. It's basic tenet is that the endless cycle of reincarnation into the caste system that the Hindu believe in can be broken out of it a person follows the Middle Way, not going into excess in anything. This doesn't mean "peace and love," it means controlling of the emotions. The reason Tibet did not fully fight against the Chinese wasn't that they were "peaceful people who had seen beyond the need of violence" or any of that new age crap that people living in the lap of luxury like to attach to other cultures; they did it because to fight back would require an effort and an emotion that would force them out of the Middle Way. There are soldiers who are Buddhists, simply because they are doing what they do, but they don't go into excess with their emotions.

 

And Islam is Christianity, but very anti-woman, setting the female of the species as the worst thing in the world (below infidels and slaves, since infidels can be converted and slaves can be freed).

 

Don't suppose that you know more than anyone unless you are sure of it.

Edited August 24, 2003 by KnightOfArmenia

[Sasun]

Silly me, instead of a long lecture, I should have quoted Jesus (as is commonly known and accepted)

 

From Mark (9:39) He who is not against us, is with us.

 

From Luke (9:50) He who is not your enemy, is with you.

[Sasun]

Knight, give it a rest, OK? I am not here to teach anyone religion. I was only trying to explain myself. I know some things, but not a lot of things from world religions. By world religions I only mean the major religions.

 

You are right, I don't know how much you know of world religions. It seemed to me you don't know because of your cow remark. It doesn't follow from that remark that you know a lot of things

However, one important point. Hindus worship anything, cow, snake, ancestors, cosmic gods, nature, etc. They see divinity in everything that God has created. On the other hand, Hinduism accepts monotheism, polytheism and atheism equally. There are no set up rules and dominant doctrines. There are conflicting theological views next to each other. The monotheist God is very ofthen called the Truth that is beyond human minds comprehension. It is a lot easier to worship some other lower god that is easy to understand. Same applies to the worship of cow.

Again, I am not an expert in any religion, but I know some things. If you do not agree with me it is perfectly OK. I am not competing with anyone to show my knowledge.

[Sasun]

Knight, to avoid another misunderstanding, I didn't simply ignore your other questions, and I don't consider them not worth answering. The reason I am not answering because I will say that I don't agree with you, and you will say you don't agree with me. There is no point in arguing about different beliefs

[KnightOfArmenia]

This isn't an intelligent contest. I made a statement that you have frequently either misunderstood or ignored.

 

The quotes of Jesus you have were written by whom? Which one of the followers of Jesus said "Hey! That's a nifty idea there! I better write it down!"

 

My point is that you accept one part of the dogma (the Bible), and reject other parts because you say they don't go by the word of Christ. They DO, simply for the fact that the "word of Christ" is what is presented to us by the church(es) to AGREE with their dogma. You don't see the inherent misconception you are making?

[America-Hye]

Any human being with any human kindness in their soul could instantly understand the essence of Christ's teachings. All the knowledge about Church history and the history of other religions in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you do not understand the essence of Christ. Sasun is on the correct path. As for the other here.............

[Sasun]

This isn't an intelligent contest. I made a statement that you have frequently either misunderstood or ignored.

 

The quotes of Jesus you have were written by whom? Which one of the followers of Jesus said "Hey! That's a nifty idea there! I better write it down!"

 

My point is that you accept one part of the dogma (the Bible), and reject other parts because you say they don't go by the word of Christ. They DO, simply for the fact that the "word of Christ" is what is presented to us by the church(es) to AGREE with their dogma. You don't see the inherent misconception you are making?

Yes, but I understand the Gospels as a mostly true account of what happened, what Jesus said, what Jesus did. The dogmas were an attempt to create a fixed framework (all for good intentions I believe) that interpret and follow what Jesus has said. They call it "the word of Christ" but they don't say that Christ actually said those words. I call it interpretations of the word of Christ. That is why I give more importantce to the former even though contradictions between the Gospels are quite obvious. We can make a logical conclusion that they don't give an exact account, nevertheless they are trustworthy (in my belief). Dogmas are not totally wrong, but not as trustworthy as the accounts of Jesus' life and activities and preaching. Where there are conflits dogmas are superseded.

I thought I made this distinction before.

[Sasun]

Any human being with any human kindness in their soul could instantly understand the essence of Christ's teachings. All the knowledge about Church history and the history of other religions in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you do not understand the essence of Christ. Sasun is on the correct path. As for the other here.............

You got me rigth, in a very simple way you said that

[KnightOfArmenia]

dog·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dôgm, dg-)

n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)

 

1. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion (emphasis mine), especially one considered to be absolutely true.

 

The dogmas were an attempt to create a fixed framework (all for good intentions I believe) that interpret and follow what Jesus has said

 

Incorrect. The basis, the original dogmata that all Christian churches are based on, are the reported acts and statements of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. A group of people originally set down and reported these acts as the foundation of a new religion (up until Paul of Tarsus, Christianity was not a religion, but a sect of Judaism; by allowing non-Jews to join, and by going back and forth between Christian settlements and preaching a singular doctrine, Paul did much to unite Christianity into what it is today, vastly similar teachings with slight differences).

 

To reject something as "dogma" and accept something else as "true" when BOTH are dogma is a personal choice, but when both are required to be part of a particular faith, then choice ends there. You can believe whatever you want; that is your own personal decision. But to be a Christian requires that one observe a set of doctrines that are universally accepted in the Christian world; to go further and, say, be a Catholic, or an Armenian Apostolic, you have to be more specific in what you observe.

 

In Islam, there is Shia and Sunni; and there is the Wahabi sect in Sunni, as well as, say, the now-defunct Hashashin sect in Shia. There is Islam (belief of Mohammed as the last prophet of God, as well as the DOGMA set down in the Koran), then there is Shia and Sunni (difference over who should have been the Caliph of Islam), and then the Wahabi (puritanical Sunni that regards all other forms of Islam as heresy) and the Hashashin (puritanical Shia that regards all other forms of Islam as heresy). One can claim to be Muslim without going into the specific sects, just as one can claim to be Christian without going into the specific churches. But the vast list of dogmata set down in both holy texts must be observed to be considered the "basic" level, either Christian or Muslim. If you sprinkle those texts with texts of other religions, go ahead. That is your decision. But you aren't Christian if you believe in reincarnation, or sacredness of animals, or any of a list of articles of faith from other religions. It's that simple.

 

For example, I personally do not care if people are gay or straight; it is honestly one of the least important concerns of my life, right down there with whether my toes are the same shade of peach. But the Bible makes it *very* clear what the stance of Christianity (and Judaism) is on practiced homosexuality; therefore, a homosexual who wants to be a normal pastor is impossible, at least as long as he PRACTICES homosexuality (since the Bible says not to lay with another man). It's not my OPINION, its not my DESIRE, its just fact.

 

Am I getting through here?

[Sasun]

SASUN, as you requested:

 

Below is taken from R.J. Rushdoony's book, The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. I. I added in a few comments, and also added in some Biblical texts that were not in the specific section of the book which I copied this from but located elsewhere in the book. So this is not a word for word quote, but very close to it. Also, the emphasis is mine.

Rousas, all I can say is this. Christ came with the message of peace, love and brotherhood, but he was murdered cruelly as a troublemaker. Even then he forgave them immediately and asked for his Father's forgiveness.

Now if you still believe that Christ's teaching allows death penalty then I will say my opinion, it is wrong. But your quotes are correct. Then they are superseded by Christ's teaching.

[America-Hye]

KOA,

 

You and most of the "Christian" world have their blinders on. Read, read read, "search and you will find." Go back and follow the paths upon which Christianity was formed. Read the books which constitute the Bible today to understand the adversarial relationship between Paul (Saul of Tarsus) and the human brother of Jesus who headed the Jerusalem Church and whose bones now lie beneath the Holy Church of St. James in Jerusalem. Read all the so-called heresies from the begining to this day. Get the big picture first by broadening your understanding of Christ.

[KnightOfArmenia]

And I love how you put quotes on "Christian."

 

I've read the vast majority of heresies; almost all of them are actually based on either who should have control of Christendom, or the physical manifestation of Jesus. None of them have any relevance in this particular discussion.

 

The main argument between James and Paul was "who should be Christian?"; James argued that Jesus had NOT rebelled against Judaism, but was simply leading it into a new direction, and therefore the laws that governed Judaism (such as banned foods and who could join) should apply; the reason you can even CONSIDER yourself Christian is because Paul's view was the one that won out in the end.

 

I could say the same thing to you, since you appear to not be able to understand something as simple as "THE THINGS YOU READ ABOUT JESUS WERE NOT WRITTEN BY WITNESSES WHATSOEVER." In court, if you try to testify that someone told you something that he was told by someone who saw the crime, you would be LAUGHED out of the witness stand. You do realize this, correct?

 

That is why its called FAITH. If you don't believe, then it won't mean anything to you.

 

You keep acting like you have read the magical manuscript that Jesus wrote directly to you, and thus you know who He was. I have not said once that your view on Christ is the wrong one, or is even WRONG in general. I have said that you cannot consider yourself CHRISTIAN if you don't follow the dogmata of CHRISTIANITY. Apparently this is too much of a concept for you.

[America-Hye]

Jesus WAS a practicing Jew. His approach was different, but he still considered himself a Jew. As such he would have had a wife, and in reality he did, who was in reality the FIRST DISCIPLE. There is something very disconcerting about the altrnatie record of the era about the discussions Jesus had with his disciples concerning the place of this woman in the budding church.

 

You simplify the differences between Paul and the human family of Jesus. Go back and read more.

[KnightOfArmenia]

No, that WAS the difference.

 

And Jesus had a wife, eh? I suppose you mean Mary Magdalene. Pray tell, how did you come upon this earth-shaking revelation? Especially since the Bible (the only text we have concerning Christ) says that she was a prostitute who reformed herself after hearing His words and became a follower, but far from the FIRST "disciple."

[America-Hye]

Prostitute?? BAH!!! Please paste the passage in the Bible that states that in this thread.

 

There are other texts you know nothing about. Unearthed and translated by the Institute of Religion at the Claremont College .

[gamavor]

Jesus WAS a practicing Jew. His approach was different, but he still considered himself a Jew. As such he would have had a wife, and in reality he did, who was in reality the FIRST DISCIPLE. There is something very disconcerting about the altrnatie record of the era about the discussions Jesus had with his disciples concerning the place of this woman in the budding church.

 

You simplify the differences between Paul and the human family of Jesus. Go back and read more.

Moshe,

 

Who told you that Jesus was a Jew (i.e. person practicing Judaism)? Who?

Even as an ethnicity it would be hard to prove that he was a Jew, since no one knows for sure that his heavenly father is Jewish. Does God almighty has ethnicity?

Only according to the Jewish law, he was (ethnically) a Jew.

[Harut]

christianity, christianity... yebrayordu xagher en...

 

i think christianity was invented by jews as a pacific religeon (relative to pagans) so pagans would convert to christianity and be less militaristic and let jews alone.

[KnightOfArmenia]

LMAO. Didn't work out very well then, did it, Harut?

[axel]

To avoid any confusion with what I've said, what I mean by Christian Orthodox is Armenian Apostolic and/or Russian/Greek Orthodox (Although we are not in full communion, we have a lot in common)

[Arpa]

No, that WAS the difference.

 

And Jesus had a wife, eh? I suppose you mean Mary Magdalene. Pray tell, how did you come upon this earth-shaking revelation? Especially since the Bible (the only text we have concerning Christ) says that she was a prostitute who reformed herself after hearing His words and became a follower, but far from the FIRST "disciple."

The real irony is the unforgiving spirit below. This was addressed to another person on another issue but nevertheless.

 

Posted: Aug 25 2003, 03:12 AM

 

Btw, there is some irony in a non-christian giving us christian lessons.

 

This post has been edited by axel on Aug 25 2003, 03:27 AM

 

Why is "forgiveness" considered the sole property of the so called Christians. I can look up the exact quote but suffice it to say that the matter of forgiveness came up when someone approached Jesus and put him to test asking him; What should one do after forgiving seven times as prescribed by the Judaic law. Jesus' answer was; "Not only seven times but seven time seventy" Or something to that effect. Do we mean that other religions don't have the word "forgive" in their vocabulary?

On second thought, here is that passage taken from Matt 18, 21 and 22

[21] Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

[22] Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

 

And look further what those who claim to have the trademark on christianness say. I said christianness, not christianity siince the latter is just a doctrine while the former is way of life, they are not necessarily one and the same. They take license to malign everybody and anybody that does not fit their mold.

 

Speaking of christianness and forgiveness, the following is another example.

Demonization and whorification is not new, it has been practiced throughout history and it is practiced even today. Anytime a woman does not fit our concept we call them whores and bitches, regardless of their perceived sin. It is in fact practiced more at the present as many women are climbing up the stairs of bussiness. Any time we have an issue with our female suoeriors we label them "bitches" and "whores". It is a male thing. Naturally, after all this a man's world, isn't it? History is replete with examples. Cleopatra, the tempterss (whore) is one, Delilah is another, how about Salome?. But the most celebrated of them is Mary Magdalene. I cannot find the passage where she is labeled a prostitute. The only reference to that is that Jesus had cast seven demons out of her. What were those demons? Could one of them have been that she was an independent thinking, ambitious woman? A threat to manhood? Mary Magdalene was a devoted disciple(?), a groupie, if you will. Some may go as far as claiming that she was in fact the one who wrote the 4th Gospel (according to John).

Here is one site among many. My apologies, it may be too long but worth a peek.

 

http://members.tripod.com/~Ramon_K_Jusino/.../magdalene.html

 

If she was a whore why them Mary the Mother kept her company? Some may go as far as claiming that Magdalena was Jesus' lover or even wife. What's wrong with that picture? As far as I am concerned, NOTHING, in fact I would be glad to find out that Jesus was actually married. What's wrong with that? If we were to accpt that then pooff goes Jesus' chastity, celibacy, humanness and more importantly his divinity. Her whoreness was one of the many retrofitted myths about Jesus to protect his divinity.(BTW, compare Christian mythology to the Greek one and see how many similarities there are such as virgin birth, trinity etc.) Speaking of virginity, why is Mary the Mother who had a baby out of wedlock considered a saint and the other Mary is a demon?

 

Perhaps MJ can enlighten us about demonization a la Hye, as to how the Paulicians and the Thondrakians were demonized in the Yeghdz Aghantots. Why is it that each and every demonization always invokes sexual deviation. Remember Sodom and Gomorra? The simple story was that they were adversaries and perhaps a threat but they were accused of many sins, the most prominent of them, of course sexual. Where does the word "sodomy" come from. Similarly we will see that in demonizing the the so called Armenian cults their most despicable sins were sexual in nature, such as bestiality, incest, pedophilia. Ughghgh!! How disgusting!! This goes on even today.

Mary Magdalene a whore? How much more disgusting can it be? Once a again SEX.

 

FYI. Mary was called Magdalene because she was from the Village of Magdal on the Sea of Galilee. There is a sizable polulation in Lebanon who are known as Majdalani because they hail from the village of Majdal Not the Same Magdal. Note, the J becomes a G in Hebrew and Egyptian vernacular.

 

Please, boys and girls don't regurgitate what you have heard from your grandmothers and your clergy. In this day and age there is so much to refer to. Please research before jumping into the fire.

[axel]

Why is "forgiveness" considered the sole property of the so called Christians.

 

Where did you get that from?

 

I think you did not understand my point if this is how you interpreted my post. Nor do you understand MJ's spirit.

[Arpa]

Where did you get that from?

 

I think you did not understand my point if this is how you interpreted my post. Nor do you understand MJ's spirit.

I took the said quote from another subject topic, namely "MJ's Article" therefor I may post this under that topic too.

In the meantime, since it is once again taking the nature of religion, I'll leave it her as well.

Wher did I get it?

You may have alluded to the fact that MJ does not profess to subscribe to any organized religion, neither do I. I have been simultaneously labeled an atheist and "the best Christian ever". You interpret it for whatever it is worth.

Some of our correspondents remind of that professor of biophysics from Stepanakert/Yerevan, who, whatever the subject may have been told me in consecutive sentences that he was an atheist and then added that he could not imagine any Armenian who did not subscribe to the CHRISTIAN Armenian Apostolic Church.

This was more than a decade ago. To this day I ave nor quite grasped what he was trying to say.

Now you tell us what he meant.

[America-Hye]

One need not agree with the beliefs of the writers to utilize the writings of the early Christians, unearthed at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. Historians should utilize all sources before coming to any conclusions. Ditto the earliest Bible which was discovered in a sealed room at St. Catherine's monastery in the Sinai. How much longer are we going to allow our Church leaders to hoodwink us and hoodwink themelves?

[Rousas]

SASUN, you said:

 

Rousas, all I can say is this. Christ came with the message of peace, love and brotherhood, but he was murdered cruelly as a troublemaker. Even then he forgave them immediately and asked for his Father's forgiveness.

Now if you still believe that Christ's teaching allows death penalty then I will say my opinion, it is wrong. But your quotes are correct. Then they are superseded by Christ's teaching.

 

In a sense, what you have said is "Scripture says it, but I don't agree with it, so then Christ must have abandoned these laws." Now where in Scripture does Christ ever say to abandon these laws? Did you read Matthew 15:3ff? Let me quote it for you:

 

1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

 

According to this text, does Christ condemn or uphold the death penalty? Doesn't he say that the death penalty is commanded by God's law and that the tradition of the Jews, who thinking themselves more capable than God in lawmaking, have "transgressed the commandment of God" in this case.

 

In Christ's every example of case law, he rejected the teaching of the Pharisees and commanded the correct teaching of the law. He did not eradicate Old Testament law, he revealed the correct and just teaching of the law, and in so doing, commanded that all men shall live by this law-word, even His law-word for He is very God of very God. By doing this, He revealed to all that His law is the same as God's law. He was not saying that His law is now God's law, and that the law the Pharisees taught was God's law and is no more. His law always was and is the same as God's law. Your ideas are more like the Pharisees than what Jesus taught concerning the law, which is His law. They are utterly humanistic.

 

So then, please ask yourself if you are making your own laws or if you are following God's law, which is the same as Christ's law? By what authority do you say that Christ's teaching supercedes these laws? Because if it is your own, it means nothing. If it is the word of God, then I will listen.

By the way, all the teaching concerning Christ's return is that he will proclaim judgment upon those who do not confess that he is Lord, while calling those who do, to glory.

 

Christ did, indeed, speak of love. If you remember when he was asked "what is the greatest commandment?" His answer was a summary of the 'ten commandments,' which was a summary of the entirety of God's law. He basically pointed to the fact that it is one law, God's law of how man shall live in communion with God and with his fellow mankind. This is the intent of the entirety of God's law, which is the godly manifestation of a loving and righteous communion with God and with man.