A Biblical Case for the Death Penalty

[Rousas]

SASUN,

What you just described is the dream of human autonomy, or self rule; the same sin which Adam fell into. This is utterly anti-Christian and anti-God. For man to define truth in terms of himself is to eradicate the need for God. God alone is autonomous, so he alone determines what is good and evil. Man knows nothing apart from what God has already revealed. It is because of God's revelation to man that man can know anything at all. If man determines truth on his own terms, then God is a liar. One cannot honestly profess that Christ is very God of very God and define what truth is for oneself at the same time. Man cannot serve two masters.

[Sasun]

SASUN,

What you just described is the dream of human autonomy, or self rule; the same sin which Adam fell into. This is utterly anti-Christian and anti-God. For man to define truth in terms of himself is to eradicate the need for God. God alone is autonomous, so he alone determines what is good and evil. Man knows nothing apart from what God has already revealed. It is because of God's revelation to man that man can know anything at all. If man determines truth on his own terms, then God is a liar. One cannot honestly profess that Christ is very God of very God and define what truth is for oneself at the same time. Man cannot serve two masters.

Rousas, you misunderstood me. The truth that I am talking about is understanding God. God is not such a small thing to assume that you understand it all. Therefore, it is always possible that no matter how well you think you understand God you could always be mistaken.

[America-Hye]

When one does an intensive comparitive study of ALL the early versions of Jesus' teachings, omne could only come to the conclusion that the essence of his teachings has been tampered with over the centuries. I do not believe in apostolic succession (I do not believe in the infallibility of the leaders of Christendom.) Just look around you today and then tell me if you do not beleive that VERY unholy policies are being practiced in the Mother Church of Christendom.

 

I believe that these unearthed early texts can give one a much better general understanding of Jesus' essence than texts which have been modfied over the centuries.

[THOTH]

Sasun - if (essentially) our world is an illusion...just to test us (for worthyness in the eyes of God) (and I think that this is essentially what many Christians are saying)...then again - what is the point of reincarnation (is it like going back to study to take your SATs for the second time?)

 

Anyway - I don't think that we have to capacity to know...and all is pretty much utter unprovable speculation...I mean why not the pink pony or whatever? I think it is pretty much an utterly useless exercise to speculate on the nature/intent/etc of god/gods...except of course as perhaps an interesting intellectual exercise - to pass idle time or what not...but no real conclusions can be made (even in trancended state - IMO). We lack perspective/ability to comprehend such things - pure and simple (this is my belief...proive me wrong! Ha!)

[DominO123]

Sasun - if (essentially) our world is an illusion...just to test us (for worthyness in the eyes of God) (and I think that this is essentially what many Christians are saying)...then again - what is the point of reincarnation (is it like going back to study to take your SATs for the second time?)

 

Anyway - I don't think that we have to capacity to know...and all is pretty much utter unprovable speculation...I mean why not the pink pony or whatever? I think it is pretty much an utterly useless exercise to speculate on the nature/intent/etc of god/gods...except of course as perhaps an interesting intellectual exercise - to pass idle time or what not...but no real conclusions can be made (even in trancended state - IMO). We lack perspective/ability to comprehend such things - pure and simple (this is my belief...proive me wrong! Ha!)

There is no need of any purpouses, reincarnation would be there as a reality, for those that believe in, and the purpouses which they will find for its existance.

[THOTH]

OK Domino - no purpose...I understand...(though doesn't God have a purpose in all things?)....but also no reality (IMO)....I cannot believe in a soul apart from the body...our bodies (our chemical processes) are integral to our existance and we cannot exsist without them. Perhaps one day we will be able to provide an articial housing for our "esssaence" ie - mind...but we are still attached to some physical pressence - IMO...and I see no reason to believe that we can jump through the ether or whatnot from one exsitance to another...

 

Oh and I also believe that once we are able to change our bodies (artificially or otherwise...) we fundementally change ourselves...we will no longer even be the same person (much as - but more so - as we change when we/our bodies age....)

Edited August 27, 2003 by THOTH

[Sasun]

That is Christ's point. Look at the whole sentence. It starts with "But ye say..."

Christ explains God's command in Verse 4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

Christ explains the scribes and Pharisees traditions in Verse 5 and 6a"But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free."

Christ then concludes in verse 6b, "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition."

OK, I checked the Armenian Bible and its a bit different, or I don't know old English that well. "Let him die the death" is simply "will be punished by death".

 

The whole thing is not that Jesus was trying to restate this law, he was simply telling them that because of the traditions of ancestors they often ignore the law.

 

How about stoning for adultery? That was the law, and they were about to stone the convicted woman when Jesus stopped them. That means he effectively annulled the law of death penalty for adultery. However, the way he did it was not directly tell that the law is false. He didn't mention the law. His way was more subtle. To me it means that only a perfect person free of sins can exercise the law, which pretty much leaves it to God because like stoners nobody of us human beings is without a sin. Since God was right there as Jesus and he didn't stone the woman either, this is an indication that the old law is no longer valid. Hence the good news of forgiveness and compassion that is the essence of Christianity.

 

It is generally evident from the Gospels that when the champions of the old laws or traditions tried to challange Jesus with the old laws trying to prove him of some wrong-doing or blasphemy or preaching against their ancestors tradition, he neither denied nor upheld those laws, but put forward an upgraded law, or better to say a moral code. I think this is very significant to note.

[Sasun]

and then enters Domino... hey dude where have you been? any new theories ? ok ok this time you can be without a new theory.

[Sasun]

THOTH, I can't prove you anything All I can say is God is a much higher consciousness that can take any form. But accordind to Domino, there is a universe were I could prove you so ask Domino how to get there and I will explain... LOL Edited August 27, 2003 by Sasun

[DominO123]

and then enters Domino... hey dude where have you been? any new theories ? ok ok this time you can be without a new theory.

I had much to do.

 

Actually, I don't think I will change the theory I have for soon.

 

Everything mathematically possible exist, you just decide which reality to accept.

 

Soul does not exist, but this is for the better for the possibility of an eternity.

 

If god really exist, it has been created by accident, natural selection is the only true concept which started everything, starting with the connection with bubbles of Universes, to complex life form, and the connection of those forms to creat a cultural consciencenous etc...

 

I am not because I think, I am, because the observers observes me, including the observer me.

[DominO123]

THOTH, I can't prove you anything All I can say is God is a much higher consciousness that can take any form. But accordind to Domino, there is a universe were I could prove you so ask Domino how to get there and I will explain... LOL

Actually... if you believe in the existance of a god, it is because of your brain activities, and the society, which is the connection of many people... the reason why your brain gave you those thoughts, is because of the reaction that created the mind, that is a product of physical laws(connections, interactions etc...). SO, every believes you may have, can't be wrong, because it would be the result of the activities of the brain, that can only respect physical laws... if you believe in god, it is only that you take one reality over another.

 

But now... this godif it exist was created by accident... But when? Infinit years ago, and one of my theories say that, minus infinit and positive infinits touches eachothers. Came to the conclusion you want.

[Sasun]

THOTH, mind cannot understand God. If one wants to understand he really needs to make an effort. One way is to practice meditation for many-many years. This is like increasing your consciousness, that is not just bound by the mind.

The only purpose of life is joy and happiness. This is not the ordinary pleasures that we know. For us those are the highest form of happiness, generally speaking. But there is a much higher reality, where one can experience a different and better joy, actually it is called bliss. But to tell you the truth I don't know what bliss is. I meditate and feel some other form of reality and happiness, but because I am not advanced that is all I have achieved so far. Ask me after 10 years, maybe more

God can be discovered inside the man, not outside.

Oh and the reincarnation is not a test, its the soul's choice. The soul could stay out there if it wanted to, but they choose to return and experience life. It is not the same as the previous life. Even though you are atheist, you have been affected by the commonly held misconception that God is some kind of a dictator. But that is not true.

But I don't mean to trouble with things that don't really interest you...

[Rousas]

How about stoning for adultery? That was the law, and they were about to stone the convicted woman when Jesus stopped them. That means he effectively annulled the law of death penalty for adultery. However, the way he did it was not directly tell that the law is false. He didn't mention the law. His way was more subtle. To me it means that only a perfect person free of sins can exercise the law, which pretty much leaves it to God because like stoners nobody of us human beings is without a sin. Since God was right there as Jesus and he didn't stone the woman either, this is an indication that the old law is no longer valid. Hence the good news of forgiveness and compassion that is the essence of Christianity.

Perhaps the prime example used by antinomians as an instance of Jesus’ setting aside of the law is the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11. This particular incident needs further attention because it in fact is a confirmation of the law.

 

Had the incident been at all antinomian, it would have provided the scribes and Pharisees with exactly the charge they wanted with which to condemn Jesus. The charge of Jesus against the scribes and Pharisees was precisely their antinomianism. He had strongly denounced them publicly for their neglect of the law for tradition (Matt. 15:1-10). No answer was possible against this charge: clearly, the leaders of the people had set aside the law by means of their humanistic legal tradition. The whole point of the attack of these leaders was to try to show that Jesus, when confronted by the hard facts of a concrete case, would be no more a strict champion of the law than they were. The culminating example of this attempt to embarrass Jesus was this incident of the woman taken in adultery. To ask for the full enforcement of the law, the death penalty, would have been to invite hostility, because the prevailing attitude was one of moral laxity. To deny the death penalty would have enabled the Pharisees to charge Jesus with hypocrisy: He would then have been in the same school of thought as the Pharisees He condemned. Quite obviously, Jesus did not take an antinomian stand, because the Pharisees left, confounded, and the incident obviously confirmed Jesus as the champion of the law.

 

A woman had been “taken in adultery, in the very act” (John 8:4). The woman was “brought unto him.” We cannot assume that she came voluntarily. She may have been dragged there, but the text does not indicate this. Apparently “the scribes and Pharisees” involved had police powers, or had, with the assistance of the authorities, used such legal powers as were necessary to compel her compliance. Having such legal authority, they were also requiring that Jesus preside at the hearing. The man involved in the act was not brought forward; we have no knowledge of the reason for this, although it would appear that it would have aggravated the “offense” of Jesus had He either demanded the death penalty for a woman, or, on the other hand, allowed an adulterous woman to go free. More emotional reaction could be milked by the use of an adulterous woman than an adulterous man. “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him” (John 8:5-6). The reason for the incident is plainly stated: grounds for an accusation against Jesus were sought. Would Jesus persist as the champion of the law, or would He retreat into the use of some aspect of the pharisaic tradition?

 

“But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not” (John 8:6). At this point, the comment of Burgon is most telling and deserves full citation:

 

The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our SAVIOR on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical oblivion. On the present occasion our LORD is observed to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion. The trial by bitter water, or water of conviction (See Num. 5:11-31), was a species of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the test proved inefficacious, unless the husband himself was innocent of the crime whereof he accused his wife.

 

Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. 5:16-24, be now considered. The accused Woman having been brought near, and set before the LORD, the priest took “holy water in an earthen vessel,” and put “of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.” Then, with the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman by oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under a terrible penalty,—her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed.

 

And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypocritical assailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presence of incarnate JEHOVAH verily they had been brought: and perhaps when He stooped down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume some connexion between the curse which He thus traced “in the dust of the floor of the tabernacle” and the words which He uttered with His lips, and He may with truth be declared to have “taken of the dust and put it on the water,” and “caused them to drink of the bitter water which causeth the curse.” For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh addressed these adulterers,—what did He but present them with living water (v. 17. So the LXX) “in an earthen vessel” (2 Cor. 4:7; 5:1)? Did He not further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, “If ye have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from the bitter water: but if ye be defiled”—On being presented with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their own acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they had shewed themselves so impatient? Surely it was “the water of conviction” as it is six times called, which they had been compelled to drink; whereupon, “convicted by their own conscience,” as St. John relates, they had pronounced the other’s acquittal. Finally, not that by Himself declining to “condemn” the accused woman, our LORD also did in effect blot out those curses which He had already written against her in the dust,—when He made the floor of the sanctuary His “book.” (John W. Burgon, The Woman Taken in Adultery, p. 239 f.)

 

Because this incident took place in the temple (John 8:2), Burgon’s comment is all the more to the point. The temple dust He wrote in met the requirements of the law. His action placed every accuser on trial immediately; that they were aware of this, the text makes clear, for we are told that all felt “convicted by their own conscience” (John 8:9).

 

Charges had been made against this woman by the “scribes and Pharisees.” Their charges represented a clear-cut case against a woman taken in “the very act” of adultery. The counter-charges by Jesus, by His actions and by His declaration, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), broke them. As themselves guilty men, they suspected secret evidence on His part against them. They were busy trying to collect evidence against Jesus; this made it easier for them to believe that Jesus had done the same to them.

 

These scribes and Pharisees had preferred charges against the woman in the place of her husband; Jesus placed them in the husband’s category by invoking Numbers 5 by His writing in the dust. If they were guilty, and Jesus knew of their guilt, then, if He invoked the death penalty, could He not charge them also? By invoking Numbers 5, Jesus in effect placed them on trial also: did they come to judgment with clean hands?

 

It will not do to plead the “high moral standards” of Pharisees. These men were planning the death of Jesus. In the face of their deliberate and calculating plans against God’s Messiah, the sin of adultery was a trifling matter to such men. They had no stomach for an accusation against them which could cite God’s requirement of a death penalty.

 

When Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), He was not referring to sins in general but to the sin of adultery. A general statement would mean no court of law is possible; the specific reference meant that men guilty of a crime were not morally free to condemn that crime in another unless they condemned it in themselves. We are told that all these scribes and Pharisees were then “convicted by their own conscience” (vs. 9).

 

Moreover, Jesus had confirmed the death penalty; He had simply demanded honest witnesses to step forward and execute her, to “first cast a stone at her” (vs. 7). To remain witnesses against her was to invite witnesses against themselves; to testify to a witnessed fact and confirm a death penalty against the woman was to invite a witness unto death against themselves. They left.

 

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?

 

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: Go, and sin no more (John 8:10-11).

 

At this point, it is necessary to distinguish between civil or juridical forgiveness. Civil forgiveness occurs when a condemned person pays the penalty for his crime, when restitution is made and the moral claims of the law are satisfied. A thief who had robbed a man of an ox and restored fivefold is thereupon forgiven. Religious forgiveness requires as a prior condition restitution, or civil forgiveness. A thief cannot be forgiven religiously if he has not made restitution.

 

There is a similar distinction between civil condemnation and religious condemnation. Civil condemnation is for offenses against the civil law; religious condemnation is both for offenses against the civil law and for disbelief in God and His law-word. The two kinds of forgiveness and condemnation are distinct but related.

 

Jesus had been asked to make a pronouncement on the civil law with respect to adultery; He affirmed the death penalty. The witnesses, however, had withdrawn their charge and had disappeared. There was thus no legal case against the woman. Legally, Jesus could not therefore sustain a case: “Neither do I condemn thee.”

 

But a moral case existed. The humility of the woman, who acknowledged Him to be “Lord,” indicates some evidence of change in her, and perhaps regeneration. But Jesus simply said, “Go, and sin no more,” an echo of His words in John 5:14, “sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.”

 

It is more than possible that she was religiously a changed person, and forgiven by God’s grace. We are simply told that no ground for legal condemnation existed at the moment. This does not rule out subsequent legal condemnation; her husband, if she had one, is not evident in this episode, but he would have had grounds for some kind of action, under existing law, if he chose. This is not the concern of the text. She was granted acquittal in terms of the evidences of the immediate “hearing.” Jesus recognized the reality of her offense by His warning, “Go, and sin no more.” The fact of this warning indicates some evidences of a change in her, since it was contrary to our Lord’s practice to warn those who would not be warned (Matt. 7:6). For Christ to tell an unregenerate person to “sin no more” is unreasonable. The particular sin referred to was adultery. She was charged with a responsibility to chastity as an aspect of her new life in Christ.

 

The woman addressed Jesus as “Lord” (John 8:11); the scribes and Pharisees simply called Him “Master” (vs. 4), and the disciples themselves often spoke of Him as simply “Rabbi” (John 1:49). Her conduct here indicated a changed person.

 

In brief, instead of any evidence of antinomianism, this episode confirmed emphatically the position of Jesus as the champion of the law, and He confounded the attempts of the scribes and Pharisees to prove otherwise.

 

The sin of Phariseeism was thus exposed. Phariseeism, first of all, denied the necessity of conversion. Man, by his unaided free will, is able to save himself, to choose between good and evil and make himself good. Both free will and self-salvation were thus affirmed, and predestination and conversion or regeneration denied. Second, the Pharisees had, while professing to hold to the law of God, converted it into the traditions of men. Thus, they had denied the Biblical doctrines of justification and sanctification and were accordingly the particular target of Christ’s denunciation. The Pharisees, professing to be champion’s of God’s word, were in fact its enemies and perverters.

[Rousas]

Yikes! I plagerized my own grandfather.

My last posting from the second paragraph on is quoted from Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 702 ff.

(These are the things that happen when one works all night.)

[Sasun]

In brief, instead of any evidence of antinomianism, this episode confirmed emphatically the position of Jesus as the champion of the law, and He confounded the attempts of the scribes and Pharisees to prove otherwise.

 

Doesn't sound convincing. The woman had to be punished by the death penalty, but was not. So how can one say that Jesus was the "champion of the law". Yes, Jesus sais "sin no more", it is the moral code that Jesus upheld. However, the law was to stone the woman, and it was not exercised. Bid difference. Am I missing something?

[Rousas]

The witnesses left. According to the law, there must be two or more witnesses for the sentence of the death penalty to be invoked. Since there were no longer any witnesses against the woman, she was free to go.

[Sasun]

The witnesses left. According to the law, there must be two or more witnesses for the sentence of the death penalty to be invoked. Since there were no longer any witnesses against the woman, she was free to go.

I don't think it has to do with witnesses. Witnesses were there before, it's not like there were no witnesses. If Jesus says "sin no more" that means he believes that the woman had done adultery. He didn't doubt the witnesses.

[Rousas]

It had everything to do with the witnesses. No one can be condemned to die if there are not two or more witnesses to witness against them. Because they abandoned their accusations by leaving, there was no witness against her. Therefore, the woman could not be condemned to die.

What if you were accused of this in court, and the judge reminded your accusers that a false witness will be convicted of the death penalty as well, would not the charge be dropped if the 'witnesses' suddenly left? Should their hasty exit not have told us something concerning their testimony? Did not Christ ask the woman where her accusers had gone? The law is clear, without two or more witnesses a man or woman cannot be condemned to die for a crime. Christ upheld the law and confirmed the death penalty, by inviting the same penalty on the men who accused the woman if they were themselves guilty of the same sin of adultery. To say that Christ meant sin in general when he said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), is to say that Christ destroyed any punishment for the breaking of law. It is to make the court of law an impossibility.

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:

I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:17,18)

[Sasun]

It had everything to do with the witnesses. No one can be condemned to die if there are not two or more witnesses to witness against them. Because they abandoned their accusations by leaving, there was no witness against her. Therefore, the woman could not be condemned to die.

What if you were accused of this in court, and the judge reminded your accusers that a false witness will be convicted of the death penalty as well, would not the charge be dropped if the 'witnesses' suddenly left? Should their hasty exit not have told us something concerning their testimony? Did not Christ ask the woman where her accusers had gone? The law is clear, without two or more witnesses a man or woman cannot be condemned to die for a crime. Christ upheld the law and confirmed the death penalty, by inviting the same penalty on the men who accused the woman if they were themselves guilty of the same sin of adultery. To say that Christ meant sin in general when he said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), is to say that Christ destroyed any punishment for the breaking of law. It is to make the court of law an impossibility.

 

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:

I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:17,18)

There was no lack of testimony. The stoners left for a different reason, they had already given their testimony, there was no doubt about it. If there was any doubt, how could Jesus say "sin no more". He accepted the testimony when the witnesses had not left yet. What you are saying is a technicality, it is not all that certain that a witness has to stay there for a certain length of time in order for his testimony be true or worthy to consider. Leaving the scene doesn't change the fact that they had already given testimony.

 

Jesus saying that he had come to fulfill the prophets and laws could only mean that there never was any death penalty. Commandment is a law, which clearly says do not kill. Anything that contradicts to it is not law. It is either a mistake or misunderstanding.

 

For me it is very clear that Christianity is against death penalty. If you are going to bring not very logical reasoning to prove that death penalty is what Christ wanted then I have nothing to add. You are free to believe whatever you wish, but your belief is not enough to take somebody's life which apparently was given not by you but God.

 

P.S. When I say "you", I don't mean just you personally, but all who share your stand on death penalty.

[Rousas]

SASUN,

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is a summary of all of God's law concerning murder, which includes the punishment for murder. It is clear that the when studying the entire teaching of this law, that God definitively commanded the death penalty to be imposed on certain law-breakers. To disagree with this is to disagree with Scriptures plain teaching. The ten commandments are not contradictory with Scripture, they are a summary of the whole of the law contained in Scripture, of which Christ summarized even further when asked what is the greatest commandment. This includes the punishment which God requires, by law, for the breaking of the law. What you have done is to rid all law of the punishment which God requires with no Biblical warrant to do so. It is clear to me that it is your word, not God's word that matters to you.

I have given a reasonable explanation of this text concerning the adulterous woman. It is clear, according to Christ himself, that He did not come to abolish, or destroy, the law. It is obvious that you don't want to say that Christ abolished the law, so you say that the death penalty never was part of God's law. Well, dreaming something away, doesn't make it go away. Scripture is clear, as indicated in the texts I have shown you, that the death penalty was and is a requirement for the breaking of God's law in certain instances. To say that it wasn't is to ignore Scripture. To say that it isn't is to place your word above God's.

[Sasun]

SASUN,

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is a summary of all of God's law concerning murder, which includes the punishment for murder. It is clear that the when studying the entire teaching of this law, that God definitively commanded the death penalty to be imposed on certain law-breakers. To disagree with this is to disagree with Scriptures plain teaching. The ten commandments are not contradictory with Scripture, they are a summary of the whole of the law contained in Scripture, of which Christ summarized even further when asked what is the greatest commandment. This includes the punishment which God requires, by law, for the breaking of the law. What you have done is to rid all law of the punishment which God requires with no Biblical warrant to do so. It is clear to me that it is your word, not God's word that matters to you.

I have given a reasonable explanation of this text concerning the adulterous woman. It is clear, according to Christ himself, that He did not come to abolish, or destroy, the law. It is obvious that you don't want to say that Christ abolished the law, so you say that the death penalty never was part of God's law. Well, dreaming something away, doesn't make it go away. Scripture is clear, as indicated in the texts I have shown you, that the death penalty was and is a requirement for the breaking of God's law in certain instances. To say that it wasn't is to ignore Scripture. To say that it isn't is to place your word above God's.

Rousas, the thing is when you say it is clear it is not clear at all. For me it is cleart that you are interpreting God's word incorrectly. You are saying I put my word above God's word, I can tell you the same thing. I don't think you understand Christ consciousness when you say that Christ was for death penalty. I have tried to explain it but you are not willing to understand simple logic. As long as you interpret Christ's forgiveness of the adultering woman as upholding death penalty (which clearly didn't take place) there is no way you can understand what I mean. So I don't want to argue about it any longer. And if you keep saying that I am putting my word above God's word, I will say no, you are wrong.