Way to ignore the woman taken in adultery. Jesus made his views on the death penalty very clear there. I’m sure you can give lots of reason why Jesus meant the exact opposite of what he said though, just like any good Christian.
You do realize, do you not, that Jesus explicitly rejected the concept of “an eye for an eye”? And that even in the original source for the quote, it was intended as an upper bound for punishment, not a lower one?
I think it all depends on your definition of sin. The more interesting question is what are “sins” as defined by the language of Genesis. What are the cultural, temporal, ethical, moral, and most important, relative values of sin in a tribal sense?
Might as well support torture too, because that’s what the Romans did to Christ. Maybe we can make prisoners drink vinegar and carry the electric chair on their back as well.
People like you scare me. If you thought scripture said it was OK to steal candy from children would you do it? Do you have no innate sense of decency or morals apart from a book written two thousand years ago? And how can one possibly have a discussion about the death penalty and leave out the question of wrongful conviction?
Daniel 9:26- “After threescore and two weeks, an anointed one will be cut off and shall be no more.” JPS 1917. Very few OT Messianic prophecies use the actual word Messiah. Most say “The LORD”, “The King”, “David”, etc. This prophecy does say that at least that a messiah would be killed. You & the Rabbis may say that it’s not “the Messiah” but that’s a matter of debate.
I’m an atheist, so take this for what it’s worth, but I think I see a pretty big flaw in this argument. You’re suggesting that the death penalty is a good thing, because without it, Jesus could not have died for our sins. However, without our sins, Jesus could not have died for our sins either. Does it, therefore, follow that it is good to sin?
Put another way, our propensity towards killing each other is what made the existence of Jesus necessary in the first place. The poignancy of the Jesus myth, I think, stems mainly from the idea that he was killed by precisely the thing that he came to save us from.
The Bible is full of paradoxes like this. At the same time Moses was saying, “Let my people go!”, God was “hardening Pharoah’s heart” so that he wouldn’t not let them go. Does that mean the Hebrews were wrong to struggle against bondage, seeing as how it was God who contrived it?
Acording to the OT writer, God had also gave Moses over 600 commandments then narrrowed it down to 10, One was “do not Kill”, Yet the first thing Joshua did was go kill a whole town full of people, with the Hebrew God’s help;not in self defense,but for their land.Seem like a contradiction to me! Since all were said to be God’s children that were killed seems to be that God didn’t like some of His creations?
Valid point. I don’t want to try to argue Soteriology, a subject I eschew as much as possible, especially in GD, but there were two strands of Jewish thought on Messianic issues worth mentioning. What seems to be the majority perspective was that he would be the Shophet, the Judge freeing his people (i.e., the Jews) from foreign rule by military means. But the other was that he would be The Go’el, the “Redeemer”, not in the Christian sense but in the Torah-law sense of the one who pays the price in behalf of another, “price” here being probably metaphorical but emphatically not with the Christian overtone of payment through his atoning death. But yes, in Jewish thought definitely not the Son of God, or an aspect or avatar of Gods, nor born of a virgin.
For the information of others – Diogenes and I know and agree on this – the author of Matthew wrote with, among other purposes, the intent of proving to the Jews generally that Jesus was in fact the prophesied Messiah, fulfilling prophesies right and left, including some verses forcibly taken out of context and applied as prophesies. This discipline is called typology, and has its own specialized vocabulary. There is a certain amount of Jungian flavor to it – consider Frodo as Christ figure, for example. However, these are usually in the form of taking something like the Emmanuel quote completely out of context.
Complete agreement, with the underscored addition to your quote.
This also is very much on target, though the whole Atonement bit covers substantially more metaphorical ground than just the Passover lamb.
Note too that Catholic thought – and I realize the OP didn’t specify it – also addresses specifically the death penality as an element of the pro-life ethic; a ‘just war’ or a justifiable killing in defense of self or others in one’s care is not necessarily an aspect of it.
Be so kind as to open a new thread and demonstrate the logical necessity of this, if you would, please. I don’t believe my own or anyone’s religious maunderings should be handed down as metaphysics that are mandatory on anyone.
The charge was levied by the Jews, not the Romans. The Romans had shown little interest in Jesus, although Jesus had been active for 3+ years at that point.
The Jews had their own legal structure and had previously shown no interest in Roman law.
That the Jews had previously planned to have Jesus killed was well known.
The Romans had to be prodded into action, who at best were ambivalent about the charges.
And after prodding what was their reaction? The first was curiosity. Jesus was shipped back and forth to Herod who wished to see Jesus perform carnival-like miracles.
At his “trial” his judge found him not ‘not-guilty’ but innocent. In fact, Pilate sought to free him.
The charges were a farce, and only brought because the Romans were the occupying authority and whose authority was needed to put a man to death. Jesus was killed in a mob-like action. The charges of “sedition” were made for their utility, not their merits.
He was crucified for Pete’s sake. That’s a Roman punishment! Specifically for rebellion, at that. The INRI thingy is also a big hint.
Stoning is the Jewish Punishment. If a “Jewish mob killed him” it would have been done by stoning.