This is the location for conversations that don't fall anywhere else on FlameFans. Whether its politics, culture, the latest techno stuff or just the best places to travel on the web ... this is your forum.

Moderators: jcmanson, Sly Fox, BuryYourDuke

#493819
SuperJon wrote:Fair enough on all points.

On the topic of Jesus speaking out on governmental policies - would it be fair to say Jesus was more concerned with the hearts of people than the political policies? Is that why he didn't speak out on governmental issues?
Of course. He was trying to change the course of religious belief and thinking. He was the fulfillment of prophecy and the answer to the sinful state of man. He had no time for political quarrels. That being said, wasn't what we now call the OT often referred to as "the Law"? Did not the Torah basically serve as the foundation for civil law in judaic culture? If so, I don't see how you can dismiss the significance of bluejacket's citation given the context in which it's delivered.
#493821
SuperJon wrote:Fair enough on all points.

On the topic of Jesus speaking out on governmental policies - would it be fair to say Jesus was more concerned with the hearts of people than the political policies? Is that why he didn't speak out on governmental issues?
I think God has always been more concerned with the hearts of people rather than governmental policies. Why He did or did not speak out against any specific policies of the Roman people is something you'll have to ask Him. I was just merely pointing out that Jesus had the opportunity to say something and indeed intervene when it was the government carrying out what was deemed justice back then, yet didn't.
#493823
Humble_Opinion wrote:That being said, wasn't what we now call the OT often referred to as "the Law"? Did not the Torah basically serve as the foundation for civil law in judaic culture? If so, I don't see how you can dismiss the significance of bluejacket's citation given the context in which it's delivered.
The Law is generally considered to be Levitical law. It can be broken down into three categories:

Religious/Moral law
Civil/Governmental law
Ceremonial Law

The latter two categories were specific to that time. While the specifics don't apply to us anymore, the reason we study them is to learn God's heart.

The question that is debatable is whether or not some of the law on capital punishment falls under the Religious/Moral category or the Civil/Governmental.
#493825
ATrain wrote:I was just merely pointing out that Jesus had the opportunity to say something and indeed intervene when it was the government carrying out what was deemed justice back then, yet didn't.
Are you referring to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11)?
#493827
bluejacket wrote:
ATrain wrote:I was just merely pointing out that Jesus had the opportunity to say something and indeed intervene when it was the government carrying out what was deemed justice back then, yet didn't.
Are you referring to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11)?
At His crucifixion, where the civil authorities were executing two thieves along with Him. He had the opportunity to speak against the death penalty, to even supernaturally free them, but didn't, even after one confessed his sin and acknowledged Jesus. I shouldn't have added the "indeed," in there. The woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus by the Pharisees.
#493843
ATrain wrote:At His crucifixion, where the civil authorities were executing two thieves along with Him. He had the opportunity to speak against the death penalty, to even supernaturally free them, but didn't, even after one confessed his sin and acknowledged Jesus. I shouldn't have added the "indeed," in there. The woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus by the Pharisees.
Ok, I just wanted to make sure what you were talking about.

First, the crucifixions and the woman caught in adultery are two completely different contexts. The crucifixions of the two "thieves" (most likely insurrectionists) were just. One of them openly confessed that fact to Jesus. Luke 23:41: "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." The situation with the woman caught in adultery was not a just "trial" by Roman or Jewish law. She did not deserve capital punishment from the human authorities.

Second, the argument from silence is a fallacy.
#493844
bluejacket wrote:
ATrain wrote:At His crucifixion, where the civil authorities were executing two thieves along with Him. He had the opportunity to speak against the death penalty, to even supernaturally free them, but didn't, even after one confessed his sin and acknowledged Jesus. I shouldn't have added the "indeed," in there. The woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus by the Pharisees.
Ok, I just wanted to make sure what you were talking about.

First, the crucifixions and the woman caught in adultery are two completely different contexts. The crucifixions of the two "thieves" (most likely insurrectionists) were just. One of them openly confessed that fact to Jesus. Luke 23:41: "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." The situation with the woman caught in adultery was not a just "trial" by Roman or Jewish law. She did not deserve capital punishment from the human authorities.

Second, the argument from silence is a fallacy.
Umm yeah, the first point I already made in my posts in response to SJ's question about the woman being brought by the Pharisees for a stoning.

The second point, the fact remains Jesus did not speak out against the death penalty when at the most opportune moment.
#493868
ATrain wrote:Umm yeah, the first point I already made in my posts in response to SJ's question about the woman being brought by the Pharisees for a stoning.

The second point, the fact remains Jesus did not speak out against the death penalty when at the most opportune moment.
Then don't even compare the two when they are not at all similar.

What a ridiculous statement.
#493884
bluejacket wrote:
ATrain wrote:Umm yeah, the first point I already made in my posts in response to SJ's question about the woman being brought by the Pharisees for a stoning.

The second point, the fact remains Jesus did not speak out against the death penalty when at the most opportune moment.
Then don't even compare the two when they are not at all similar.

What a ridiculous statement.
I wasn't comparing and you're completely missing the point.
#493885
bluejacket wrote:
ATrain wrote:Umm yeah, the first point I already made in my posts in response to SJ's question about the woman being brought by the Pharisees for a stoning.

The second point, the fact remains Jesus did not speak out against the death penalty when at the most opportune moment.
Then don't even compare the two when they are not at all similar.

What a ridiculous statement.
Come on now. The first one is legitimate, the second one is ridiculous.
#493888
alabama24 wrote:Come on now. The first one is legitimate, the second one is ridiculous.
He's not directly comparing them. I am saying that the two situations should not be used together at all, especially if you are arguing for the death penalty. If I have confused this, then I apologize.

The second was in response to his statement: "The second point, the fact remains Jesus did not speak out against the death penalty when at the most opportune moment." The argument from silence, using either Jesus or Paul, is very faulty.
#493909
Re-reading the posts, I am confused. But I do have three screaming boys out of school running around. lol

My point was that it isn't unreasonable to use the "woman caught in adultery" as pointing towards a non-capital punishment stance. It doesn't PROOVE it, but it isn't unreasonable to use that as a PART of one's argument.

The suggestion that Jesus could have used his crucifixion to make a political stance against capital punishment is ridiculous. Jesus didn't come to reform politics, he came to renew hearts. Obviously there are many subjects which have a political aspect to them, but Jesus didn't speak on the political side of those issues. He spoke on the moral/spiritual/heart side of those issues.
#493918
As if politics is amoral? All of Scripture has incredible political ramifications. The modern lens through which some of you are looking at this is way off-kilter.
#493919
ALUmnus wrote:As if politics is amoral? All of Scripture has incredible political ramifications. The modern lens through which some of you are looking at this is way off-kilter.
You never answer my question from earlier about if you were being sarcastic or not so I really don't know what tone to read this post in.
#493923
SuperJon wrote:On the topic of Jesus speaking out on governmental policies - would it be fair to say Jesus was more concerned with the hearts of people than the political policies? Is that why he didn't speak out on governmental issues?
SJ, I think ALUmnus is referring to this quote.
#493924
alabama24 wrote:Jesus didn't come to reform politics, he came to renew hearts. Obviously there are many subjects which have a political aspect to them, but Jesus didn't speak on the political side of those issues. He spoke on the moral/spiritual/heart side of those issues.
I don't agree with this. The moral/spiritual/heart component is central, but there are strong political implications to His teachings as well. Which one of the reasons is why the people of Jesus' time viewed Him from a strongly political perspective.
#493947
Ok. So what are said "political ramifications"? Jesus didn't run for office. He didn't condemn the political leaders for thier policies. He did criticize the religious leaders. He did give religious and moral instructions which can guide our entire lives (including politics).
#493951
alabama24 wrote:Ok. So what are said "political ramifications"? Jesus didn't run for office. He didn't condemn the political leaders for thier policies. He did criticize the religious leaders. He did give religious and moral instructions which can guide our entire lives (including politics).
I'll just focus on a few of the many instances where Jesus came in direct contact with Rome, the supreme political authority in Palestine at the time. Jesus was constantly engaged with the political dynamics of his time.

Publicans are mentioned throughout the Gospels. Each instance had/has political ramifications.

"The Lord's Prayer" has spiritual implications, but it is also a strong political statement. "...your kingdom [and kingship] come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven..."

The entire discussion about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17, and Luke 20:20-26) has profound political implications even to this day.

Jesus was executed by the Romans as a insurrectionist (Matthew 27:11 and 37, Mark 15:2 and 26, Luke 23:3 and 38, and John 18:33 and John 19:1-22). Claiming to be the King of the Jews was a political statement toward Herod, Pilate, Caesar, the Jewish leaders, and the people. Also during the trial, "Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you? Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above." (John 19:10-11)
#494354
SuperJon wrote:
ALUmnus wrote:As if politics is amoral? All of Scripture has incredible political ramifications. The modern lens through which some of you are looking at this is way off-kilter.
You never answer my question from earlier about if you were being sarcastic or not so I really don't know what tone to read this post in.
yes, my comment way up at the top was sarcasm. The one quoted was not.
LaTech

I also keep tab with JMU because there is a player[…]

NCAA Realignment Megathread

Does Gonzaga and St Mary have D1 football ? When[…]

Dondi Costin - LU President

HEB is alright, but honestly Trader Joe's is my […]

JMU for 6 games

The fact of the matter is, JMU and Liberty could n[…]