The condemned?

[Bobcat]

Jesus says that those who hear His word and do not keep it are condemned.

John 12:47,48
“Anyone who hears my word and does not keep it I am not the one to condemn him for I did not come to condemn the world I came to save it. Anyone who rejects me and does not accept my word he already has his judge namely the words I’ve spoken that’s what will condemn him on the last day.”

So keeping His word is accepting it.

Jesus said He kept God’s word. He also said He came to spread it. So by His standards keeping God’s word is spreading it.

Do you keep God’s word as Jesus did? Or are you condemned?

[JehovahsWitness]

How about actually killing such a person himself

As I have explained, killing someone without due process was illegal. If Jesus had witnessed such a crime, he was not authorized by law to simply assasinate the person (any more than we are today). He was to report the crime to the duly appointed authority, who (especially for a crime that carried the death penalty) were to conduct a proper investigation.

Is this what god cared about or said? ...

Yes, if scripture is any indication of Gods feelings, it does. Scripturally speaking, what God CARES about is justice; obviously a population given the authority to indescriminatly kill without due process would create a country where justice would be compromised and inevitably, innocents suffered. God cares about justice and is primarily motivated by love, not a thirst for blood no matter what the cost.

Is that what God said? Yes. God's explicit words in the Torah* is to set up a judiciary system and to try criminals therein. Jesus killing an untried criminal would have violated both the letter of the law (ie what is explicitly stated in the Torah) and the spirit of the law. The question under discussion is, did Jesus violate the written law ("Gods word")? The answer is there is no evidence that he did. **If** he had killed (as a member of the public and not a duly appointed official) a practising homosexual without due process he would have violated the written law.

If I may refer to Yozard's contribution

I can assure you that nearly 120 Talmudic volumes (70 Babylonian and 53 Jerusalem) meticulously preserved and debated rabbinic thought, covering the 5th century b.c.e, to the 2nd century c.e. Rabbinic interpretation, as well as legal precedent by way of Sanhedrin, was the mode through which justice was meted out, not zealous vigilantes on a whim. Any penalty prescribed through Torah law was bound by precedent of aforementioned entities ( rabbinic, Sanhedric). Deuteronomy 17:8-13, gave them, and only them, the authority to enforce a penalty, as well as which type of penalty, ie., fines, capital punishment, excommunication etc.

TWO WITNESSES

Further, God said [ie the divine law stated ] no man could be put to death without there being at least two collaboraring witneses of his crime. So again, should Jesus have simply put a homosexual to death himself, he would have opened himself up to charges of NOT keeping the word of God.

[ * ]The Mosaic law is made up of about 600 laws

The order was; to put such a person to death (an action) ...

The order was to put the guilty individual to death, any innocent people accused wrongfully were excempt . Only by due process (which required two witnesses) could guilt be assertained. So again had Jesus witnessed a crime, he still was not have been at liberty to kill the person.

[tam]

May you all have peace,

All of this talk about what Christ would or should have done... but we already know what He DID do with regard to the woman caught in adultery (and that too was a capital offense according to some of what is written about the law).


Did He tell the men who brought her to Him to report her to some other authorities? Did He tell them that they should start stoning her according to the law and/or Moses?

Or did He save her life - "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone"... and even though He could have cast the first stone according to the standard He had just given them, did He instead forgive her, show her mercy - and in the process show us what God TRULY desires?



"I desire mercy, not sacrifice..." Hosea 6:6


I know there are some who would dismiss that verse (from John 8). But this event happened, and you certainly cannot say that this account contradicts anything my dear Lord taught. On the contrary, this account is in line with all that He taught (by word and example). Christ could also have demanded life for life from those who took His life, but did He? Or did He instead ask forgiveness for them? As did Stephen also when he was being stoned, following the example that Christ set.

It is also in line with what my dear Lord also said,

“Do not judge, or you will be judged. For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

"Be merciful, and you will be shown mercy."


Mercy is what God desires; mercy is what my dear Lord showed (always doing as His Father desires); and I thank JAH for this! Because I know that I need mercy to be shown me, so I can only rejoice and be glad whenever my dear Father in heaven has mercy on anyone.

People get caught up in rules upon rules, and for this (and perhaps other reasons), they miss the mercy that God desires, just as His Son showed us... and Christ Jaheshua is the One who reveals His Father as His Father truly is; He is the One who always did what pleases His Father and that includes the mercy and forgiveness that He showed this dear woman, saving her life rather than sacrificing it.


May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear so as to get a sense of these things, and to also hear as the Spirit and the Bride say to you, "Come!" May anyone wishing and thirsting, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

All god said was "They must be put to death." an imperative Jesus was ordered to make sure happen...

Where is Jesus [or any other individual] mentioned in the Hebrew law code? The law was in fact given to the NATION, and so there was a collective (national) responsibility to ensure it was carried out. The mechanism for this was stipulated specifically in the Hebrew bible.

--> see post #41

--> see post #28,

... If Jesus was not responsible for the death of a practicing homosexual then he would not have kept god's word

Perhaps, if the law had named Jesus or had stipulated that every individual must personally kill at least one homosexual. As it was it says nothing of the kind. The verse cited simply stated the end result, namely that those guilty if such actions must be put to death. It does not say WHO should do it. As a nation, the Jews had collectively accepted the responsibility to ensure this was done but no one individual is named.

... Jesus would have either personally put such a man to death or made sure that others put him to death. Jesus's roll was a pro-active one---it had to be in order to keep god's word.

Can you prove that above with scripture other than the scripture in question?.

As has been explained multiple times, the Jewish law prescribed this be done through a court system and not through a vigilante system of "hunt and kill"*. The court judges and they ALONE were scripturally authorized to investigate crime. A harmed individual or a witness only had the authority to report the wrong to said judges and appeal for justice. As private individuals, according to the law, no action was required unless they found themselves in a position where they needed to testify regarding such a crime.

* There was no scripturally authorized policing system, and nobody, except officers of the court, were authorized to proactivey find criminals


Those are the facts; if you have your bible, feel free to attempt to prove any of my statements wrong.
.



JW

[Miles]

How about actually killing such a person himself

As I have explained, killing someone without due process was illegal. If Jesus had witnessed such a crime, he was not authorized by law to simply assasinate the person (any more than we are today). He was to report the crime to the duly appointed authority, who (especially for a crime that carried the death penalty) were to conduct a proper investigation.

Is this what god cared about or said? ...

Think it was due process and justice that put into effect god's order as related in 1 Samuel 15:2-3, where it says

"2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys.’”

Of course it wasn't. So, so much for god abiding by any judicial ruling. God wants done what he wants done. PERIOD! So when he said "They must be put to death." his order wasn't contingent on any ruling by any court. God didn't give a rat's patoot what any law may have said. He demanded that "all the men and women and all of their children and little babies" be killed. Plus, "You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys."

So why should anyone believe god cared what some court might say about bedroom hanky-panky between two guys? They shouldn't. What they should believe is that come hell or high water god wants those men who have sexual relations with another man as with a woman to be put to death." And unqualifiedly so.

“If a man has sexual relations with another man as with a woman, they have committed a terrible sin. They must be put to death."

Nice guy, this god of yours.

The order was; to put such a person to death (an action) ...

The order was to put the guilty individual to death, any innocent people accused wrongfully were excempt.
Only by due process (which required two witnesses) could guilt be assertained.

Show me where this is said in conjunction with punishing practicing homosexuals.

I await your chapter and verse.

.

[JehovahsWitness]

Think it was due process and justice that put into effect god's order as related in 1 Samuel 15:2-3, where it says

"2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys.’”

....

Obviously, the context thus far of the discussion has been the judicial system that governened subjects living under the rule Jewish theocratic legal system (which subsequently existed under Roman domination). The question being can we say Jesus obeyed the written laws that governed the nation he lived in? The example you have presented was killing of of a foreign enemy nation (not subject to Jewish law) during conflict.

The Amelekites were not being punished for infringing the written word of God (the commandments were not give to them) they were being destroyed because they had made a direct and unprovoked attack on Gods people.

How is this connected to the obligations of a Jew vis-a-vis to Jewish law? In short, how is this relevant?

[JehovahsWitness]

The order was to put the guilty individual to death, any innocent people accused wrongfully were excempt. Only by due process (which required two witnesses) could guilt be assertained.

Show me where this is said in conjunction with punishing practicing homosexuals.

I await your chapter and verse.

DEUTERONOMY chapter 19 verse15
“A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.

DEUTERONOMY chapter 17 verse 6
On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.

[Miles]

Think it was due process and justice that put into effect god's order as related in 1 Samuel 15:2-3, where it says

"2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys.’”

....

Obviously, the context thus far of the duscussion has been the judicial system that governened subjects living under the rule Jewish theocratic legal system (and subsequently under Roman domination). The example you have presented was killing of of a foreign enemy nation during conflict. How is this connected to the obligations of a Jew vis-a-vis to Jewish law? In short, how is this relevant?

And that's just it. It isn't relevant because as the Hebrews tell their story they're the only one god actually cares about. The creator of the entire universe and everything on Earth only concerned himself with the activities of 12 small Israeli tribes and their laws, all of which are tucked away in a small corner of the planet. God never really cared about the lives of others as long as they weren't Israelites. Right? And when an issue came between the Israelites and anyone else, god ALWAYS favored his Jews. So, go ahead and kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies of the Amalekites. As long as they're not Israelites, who cares.

That's the god of Abraham for you.


.

[JehovahsWitness]

Think it was due process and justice that put into effect god's order as related in 1 Samuel 15:2-3, where it says

"2 The Lord All-Powerful says: ‘When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the Amalekites tried to stop them from going to Canaan. I saw what the Amalekites did. 3 Now go fight against the Amalekites. You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys.’”

....

Obviously, the context thus far of the duscussion has been the judicial system that governened subjects living under the rule Jewish theocratic legal system (and subsequently under Roman domination). The example you have presented was killing of of a foreign enemy nation during conflict. How is this connected to the obligations of a Jew vis-a-vis to Jewish law? In short, how is this relevant?

And that's just it. It isn't relevant because as the Hebrews tell their story they're the only one god actually cares about. The creator of the entire universe and everything on Earth only concerned himself with the activities of 12 small Israeli tribes and their laws, all of which are tucked away in a small corner of the planet. God never really cared about the lives of others as long as they weren't Israelites. Right? And when an issue came between the Israelites and anyone else, god ALWAYS favored his Jews. So, go ahead and kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies of the Amalekites. As long as they're not Israelites, who cares.

That's the god of Abraham for you.


.

Again, how is any of this relevant? The question under discussion is, could Jesus be accussed of failing to keep God's word if he neglected to kill a homosexual? The answer is no, not under the Mosaic law.


JW