Would Jesus flip the switch?

Worker Joined: Dec 08, 2005 Posts: 107

Imagine Jesus in the execution chamber of Texas Department of Corrections. Does anyone really believe he would flip the switch? Better yet, does anyone really believe he would want someone else to flip the switch?

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

Your basic question is asking if Capital Punishment violates Scripture. The answer is unequivocally no, it does not. The Bible is replete with historical records of death as a punishment to disobedience as mandated by God. Even the total destruction of all men, women, children, and animals of some of Israel's enemies. God set up the principles for human government and instructions to try to keep order. Whatsoever a man sows, that also shall he reap.

When all men are judged before Jesus at the Great White Throne Judgement, those who never accepted Christ as their Savior will be cast into eternal damnation and suffering in a true, real, and literal firey Hell.

Yes, my friend, I really believe that He would. Especially in light of the fact that He will judge all men at the appointed time.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:02 pm

The problem with that statement is the same mistake so many others make. The question is *NOT* and never will be " if Capital Punishment violates Scripture". The question is whether Jesus, who taught us to love our neighbors, turn the other check, and so forth would intentionally take the life of a human being in an act of revenge. You are obviously taking examples out of the Old Testament and trying to apply them 1:1 to the New Testament. You can't. If you could, then slavery would be allowed, we would have the right if not obligation, to put to to death all of those people who worked at the Super Bowl, eating shell fish would be outlawed, and so on. Either we apply the Old Testament in its entirety or we evaluate our actions based on the new agreement (i.e. covenant) that Jesus made with us.

The Jesus of the Christian Bible would not push the button. Nor would he want others to do so.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:48 pm

You are mistaken. I used examples from both the old and the new, intentionally. I saw immediately the "trap" you were trying to lay. And, Christ reminds us that He did not come to do away with the Law (Old Testament), but to fulfill it. Man's own disobedience to the law's of the nation is what brought upon the punishment of the 'switch'. There is no act of revenge, as is the mistake that so many make. It is a reward for the crime they chose to do, willingly. Yes, Jesus will one day exact the punishment of eternal damnation upon all those who failed to do one thing and one thing only - Accepting Christ as their Savior. Just one Scripture passage, and I could give you many, supports the fact that the Old Testament teachings have not been scrapped. 2 Timothy 3:16 supports this belief: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (KJV). Also, your statements about the Super Bowl and the Law of Moses is so out of context! Those were health laws that only applied to the Jews and was given by God to show His people that no one is capable of maintaining all of God's Laws. That's why He sent Christ to fulfill His Law.

registered · Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:10 am

jimmo wrote:

You are obviously taking examples out of the Old Testament and trying to apply them 1:1 to the New Testament. You can't...

The Jesus of the Christian Bible would not push the button. Nor would he want others to do so.

Oh, really?!?!? killing me

Quote:

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mat 13:41,42)

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:00 am

That passage of VinsDSL's can be interpreted in different ways. "Weed out" means the evil goes to hell, which is then supported by the very next sentence. There is nothing in the New Testament that says Jesus is going to run around killing sinners. Why did he stop the stoning (i.e. "reward for the crime", as Raven put it)? All of sinned and come short of the glory of God and it is our place to dish out that absolute punishment.

Raven, it is not surprising that so many people quote the Bible as proof that the Bible is the unchanging and absolute word of God. Personally, I find it ludicrous to use anything as proof of itself. Well, let's just let off any criminal that says he's innocence. Since the Bible says it is the truth and we are forced to believe it, then we must also believe the criminals. Sorry, but ludicrous is the only word that fits.

Although I strongly believe in the philosophy of the Christian Bible, so many people forget one important aspect and that it was written, interpreted and parts were even cut out by men. In the third century AD, Athanasius, the bishop Alexandria decided he did not like certain books of what was **then** the New Testament (although not referred to as such). The books he removed did not fit a **man's** interpretation of the Bible. Did Athanasius receive divine inspiration from God that these books should be removed? If so, why is it not mentioned anyway in the New Testament. Even as late as the fifth century (maybe later), there was still controversy as to which books really belong. Most so-called Christians do not even know Athanasius existed, let alone that one man's decision determined what was part of of the Christian faith. Added to that, you have all of the changes that people have made through the centuries. To be honest, did you really know who Athanasius was before I mentioned it? (Bear in mind that saying you did know about him when you did not is false witness.)

Do *you* speak Aramaic or ancient Greek. Do *you* know exactly what words were used when the Gospels were being put to paper the first time? No. So, you are basing your faith on the interpretation of many **other** men, as well as your own.

Jesus makes the final decision about who gets into heaven and who does not. He is not going to buy the arguments "Well, I was just obeying orders". So by blindly following what other people have decided they **interpet** a truth, you run the risk of not fulfilling your half of the covenant.

Raven, what does not keeping the Sabbath holy have to do with "health laws". People worked on Sunday which is a direct violation of the ten commandments. Where in the bible does it say that the punishment is different than for "thou shalt not kill". We all know that, uh, "certain members" of the current US administration have lied to us repeatedly. That is false witness. The punish, per the Old Testament, is the same as breaking the other commandments.

Seriously, I would like to see where in the Bible it says that the they " were health laws that **only** applied to the Jews" (emphasis min). I thought that the New Testament did not replace the Old Testament and that **everything** was applicable. Where does it say which things are not applicable. Some commandments are no longer applicable so we no longer have to keep the Sabbath holy and we can lie through our teeth for political gain.

I would agree that since the State says that they have the right to execute someone who they believe committed murder falls under "rendering unto Caesar", and Jesus accepted the power of the state as his Kingdom was elsewhere. However, if you take a critical look at Jesus's behavior you will see that it is definitely not one that would support such a violent act. Your support of capital punishment should be based upon what Jesus teaches not on a pragmatic assessment of whether or not capital punishment deters crime or what the conservative Republicans tell you what to believe.

Let's stay with one particular case: Andrea Yates. The woman is crazy. Period. To methodically drown your children because you hear voices telling you to is, by definition, insane. It would be truly sad to hear you call yourself a Christian if you think this woman needs to be executed. That's what the State wanted with their charges of capital murder. Yes, she deserves to be locked up. But in a Christian sense has not sinned because she did not know that what she did was wrong. I am not saying she should be set free. However, if you truly understand Jesus's behavior, you would know he would feel pity for her. Thus, it is the Caesar (i.e. the State) that carries out this act. It is definitely not something Jesus would do.

I had a little card many years ago that said this about Christianity: "If you are right, I have lost nothing. I am right you have lost everything."

Based solely on the Jesus' behavior and the goal to be as much like him as possible, it is illogical to claim executing people is something he would want. So, if you stand before Jesus and cannot say that you stove to be like, then you have not fulfilled your obligation under the new covenant. Simply saying you have accepted Jesus as your savior without the necessary behavior is not enough.

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:11 am

jimmo wrote:

There is nothing in the New Testament that says Jesus is going to run around killing sinners...

Although I strongly believe in the philosophy of the Christian Bible, so many people forget one important aspect and that it was written, interpreted and parts were even cut out by men...

LoL! It seems YOU have 'cut out' the Old Testament entirely, and decided to do away with anything in the New Testament that has to do with criminal justice...

Anyway, there is no doubt in my mind that He would 'flip the switch' -- really!

Hell, remember the time He killed everyone in the world except Noah's family and their pets?

registered · Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:18 am

jimmo wrote:

Raven, it is not surprising that so many people quote the Bible as proof that the Bible is the unchanging and absolute word of God. Personally, I find it ludicrous to use anything as proof of itself.

Although I strongly believe in the philosophy of the Christian Bible, so many people forget one important aspect and that it was written, interpreted and parts were even cut out by men.

Do *you* speak Aramaic or ancient Greek. Do *you* know exactly what words were used when the Gospels were being put to paper the first time? No. So, you are basing your faith on the interpretation of many **other** men, as well as your own.

It is interesting that you base all your other arguments on what "Jesus would do", but where is it that you get your information about His life? Isn't it the same Bible that we all are talking about?

I agree that the original scriptures were the only inspired work as Raven quoted in Timothy and that very few of us fallible "men" have the training, experience, and gift to translate and understand from the original languages. But, do you think that God would only care about the people back in the times when the original scriptures were written and taught and not care about us today? He still desires a personal relationship with every human being that will accept His gift of salvation.

Yes, there is controversy and yes, there may be some pieces missing here or there (who knows but God himself). But, what else do we have?

You quote Jesus' life from the Bible and others here are quoting passages from that same Bible that seem to contradict your views.

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:06 am

The parts of the Law that refer to dietary habits are commonly referred to as health laws - man's terms. I never said that it was in the Bible. The Law was given to the Jews, only. This is common knowledge and historical record. That's why it is constantly recorded in phrases like "Children of Israel (Jews)" and the rest as "Strangers w/i their Gates" and many other statements that are far too many to mention. You can research that yourself.

Your foundation of disbelief is summed up in your own words "Although I strongly believe in the philosophy of the Christian Bible". To you it is a philosophy. To those of us who believe that Jesus is the Son of God who gave himself as a sacrifice so that by believing in Him and what He accomplished on the cross (Faith) plus nothing we may, by His promise, know that we have eternal life, it is Truth. You have a philosophy - I have Faith. Your choice - My choice.

To debate this further would be of no use and serve no purpose. It would be "answering a fool according to his folly" as is recorded in Proverbs. Your arguments, "proofs", debates, are not new and Satan started putting doubt in Eve's mind way back at the beginning. It is that doubt that fills your heart with a philosophy. I do pray that you will open your heart and mind and read the testimony of the Book of John with an open heart. This one of the greatest recorded writings of man on what he saw with his own eyes and recorded in his own words.

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:26 pm

Where did I say I disbelieved anything? As in "Your foundation of disbelief". You are misinterpreting my words (dare I say "again"). I separate the beliefs (i.e. philosophy) from the ceremonies (religion). I am not going to hell because I don't participate in a particular ceremony. I will, if I don't have particular beliefs. So, I you are going to d*** me, please do it for what I do or say and not because of your incorrect interpretation. **MY** faith tells me that God is a being of Love and not hate. **MY** faith tells me that he will forgive our trespasses as we must forgive those that trespass against us. (Sounds like that should be in the Bible somewhere, doesn't it?)

Actually I am **extremely** disappointed at the comment "To debate this further would be of no use and serve no purpose." as that is obviously an **extremely** un-Christian attitude. Further in demonstrates that you have a very false belief in your mind about what I do or not believe. I personally do not accept the Bible as proof of its own validity. I do accept what Jesus has personally taught me. So, you believe I have had doubt put in my mind by Satan and are not willing to spend an extra few minutes to convince me otherwise? Truly sad.

The key point of bringing up things like eating shell fish is that the bible did say it was an abomination. It never said it was okay. So, either the Bible is completely and eternally valid, or we are allowed to interpret it in the context of the world today. The historical reason why homosexuality and intercourse without procreation ("spilling your seed upon the ground") were unlawful was because the Hebrews at the time were a very small group and there was a need to increase the population. Both of those acts did not serve to increase the population. Today, there is no longer a need. So, if eating shell fish is no longer an abomination, then why is homosexuality? I am not a big fan of it, but you can't use the Bible to condemn one and not the other. Granted the original Hebrew word translated as "abomination" is actually different for these two, with the one for homosexuality being the much harsher of the two. However, both were "wrong" for historical reasons. At the very least it is a demonstration that unless we all speak Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, we are relying on other people's translations and interpretations.

Still, the bible does say that violation of the ten commandments is sin. So, not keeping the Sabbath holy by working on the Sabbath is something that should be punished. Granted, if you look at historical rabbinical law, you will find that many sins were not punished by death. However, according to rabbinical law, there were a number of prerequisites necessary before one could be put to death for killing someone. If we are to follow the Bible in an absolute sense, then many (most?) of the executions carried out today are wrong.

To me, the most defining part of the bible in terms of Jesus's teachings in this regard is John 8:1-11. Why didn't Jesus let her be stoned to death? That was the punishment. That was her "reward" for her life of sin. However, Jesus did not want her executed. Jesus did not "push the button". Jesus' own act show that it is wrong to think he would want someone executed for committing a sin.

Then there is Romans 13:9-14, which is more or less repeated frequently thoughout the New Testament.

montego, there are only a handful of non-Biblical accounts of Jesus. I have not read the originals, but what I have read about these documents has convinced me that the person did exist, completely independent of my belief in his divinity. You addressed a key aspect of my faith with the question:

Quote:

But, do you think that God would only care about the people back in the times when the original scriptures were written and taught and not care about us today?

Just the opposite. We have seen that for health and other reasons certain behavior was forbidden/illegal two thousand years ago. Today, eating shell fish or even pork is not a health problem. The world has changed. Our implementation of the messages in the Bible should change as well.

Since God did not sit down with a word processor to write the Bible, but had to go through fallable men, there are many mistakes in the Bible. Just to name two:

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign...
===
Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..."
Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

There are many more, including factual mistakes. Either God is fallable, or there is something wrong with the interpration with the absolute truth of the Bible. Even the passage mentioned by raven (2 Timothy 3:16) says "inspired by" God. Even if you could find a passage that claims the Bible is in fallable, the mere fact there are many contractions in the Bible like the one above proves it **is* fallable. The Bible itself is proof that it is not an absolute truth.

This isn't an issue of taking things out of content. The numbers are simply different. They contradict each other. To me, it does *not* disprove the divine *inspiration* of the Bible. However, it does show that there are mistakes. *Your* faith guides *you* in deciding which parts you consider to be correct. *My* faith guides *me*. But to say there is an absolute truth is disproven by the Bible itself.

My faith tells me that blindly following something even the Bible is not true faith. God has given us the free will to not only choose but to question. If you don't question the validity of the Bible, then it is not free will.

I cannot say what God as told you about killing someone. However, God has told me that it is wrong.

Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:01 pm

No, you decided to invent/create god and jesus in your YOUR image. Since the only testimony of who God is and who Jesus is are the accepted Holy Scriptures, that has to be the basis of your interpretation and belief. You read the bible to find dotted i's and crossed t's of mistakes. I read it for it's continuity and inspiration. I have never stated that the bible was infallible. I believe that the originals were penned without any mistakes at all. There have been interpretive mistakes, yes, but none that do anything at all to contradict the testimony of who God is and who Jesus is. And what God's plan for Salvation has been since creation - Faith in the Jesus Christ of the Scriptures, not in man's mind. Every man's way is right in his own eyes - That's why we have to put our Faith in something more than what your imagined image of a non-scriptural jesus has "taught" you. BTW, Jesus was challenging the hypocrisy of the Pharisees when he challenged them about the stoning. You would do well to read the bible in its biblical context and not as separate lines of a story.

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:14 am

jimmo wrote:

Actually I am **extremely** disappointed at the comment "To debate this further would be of no use and serve no purpose." as that is obviously an **extremely** un-Christian attitude...

Au contraire... Wink

Quote:

"Don't give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." (Mat 7:6)

Jesus told His disciples that if they came across ppl who do not want to hear 'the message', they were to shake the dust off their sandals, and move along. Basically, quit wasting responses on those that don't deserve it...

Quote:

Then His disciples came and said to Him, "Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?" But He answered and said, "Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch. (Mat 15:12-14)

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:50 am

Amen, VinDSL Cheers

Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:51 am

I do believe all has been said that needs to be said on this matter.