SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - The Death Penalty...Is it right?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - The Death Penalty...Is it right? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=97126)

There are no jokes in the bible, and there ought to be.

Stoning the adulterer

"What are ya like, riding the whole lot of us?"

(something wrong with that, isn't there?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

There are no jokes in the bible, and there ought to be.

Stoning the adulterer

"What are ya like, riding the whole lot of us?"

(something wrong with that, isn't there?)

Oh I there there are... but some people are too serious to catch them!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakahura

I would have to disagree with "The problem"

After all plenty of Christians behave as if their Bible is the word of God.

The Koran preaches pretty much the same message as the Bible.
"The problem" is all in the interprtations, which alas vary from the utopic to the despotic, regardless of the religion.

That's pretty far from the truth. The Bible is written by man and is the interpretation of what man says of what god said.

The Koran however is Mohammed in a trance and god talking through Mohammed and posssesing his body and everything is the exact word of God as written by Allah himself.

Big - actually huge difference.

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camaero

I am fine with the death penalty. They only problem is that there have been lots of people who were found guilty, but were really innocent. Just recently some guy was able to prove himself innocent after 11 or so years in the can. So for the death penalty, there has to be undeniable evidence.

A regrettable and unfortunate side effect that can't be avoided 100%. That is why the US system would rather see 10 guilty go free than to hang 1 innocent. However, this is not a perfect system and never will be. You must take the good with the bad scenario.

Other examples of the good with the bad - SOmeone may accidently hurt another through daily living, but should we stop living because an innocent may be hurt? Should we stop flying because 30 people month in the US will die? Should we stop driving because 40,000 people will die in cars this year? All unfortunate, but all neccesary for every day living.

Laws and the death penalty will trap an innocent at some point again in the future, and that person however unlikely (I have a better chance of winning the lottery 100 times over) may even end up being my own person, but I am willing to make/take that tinniest chance of sacrifice in favor of making sure the deterrance of capitol punishment remains in place for the benefit of my fellow man.

Who are you to take that risk or sacrifice on behalf of another's life? As you say it is almost definitely someone else's life that will be wrongly taken. You can sacrifice your own life but to sacrifice a life on behalf of another faceless innocent is an abomination of everything that our nations stand for. The constitution demands that that not happen. That the rights of one man to live cannot knwoingly be sacrificed for some statistical benefit.

It is also a spurrious argument to say that since car accidents cause death yet we cannot stop driving, so too must the consequences of the death penalty be judged. That doesn't work out because the death penalty is not an essential of the economy and the growth of society. The same with daily living. Those examples are not relavent because they are outside the context of the calculated and delivered death penalty. The judiciary is deliberately seperate from the main of daily life. It is meant as an impartial method for looking at individual crime and punishment.

And to top it all off I could make an inverse argument that the life of an innocent is far too valuable to risk in favour of capital punishment therefore I am willing to sacrifice the lives the death penalty might save so that the justice system might not be responsible for an irreversible sentense. That however is not my position but it is just as viable as yours Subman. The way I differentiate it however is that when people die as a result of the death penalty we could prevent it, knowingly. It is directly our actions. However when someone is killed by a criminal because we didn't do one thing or another for good reason that is the responsibility of the person who killed. The alleged benefits, as yet unconfirmed, of the death penalty insist that there are phantom lives to be saved, something we judge by an absense of murder. That is difficult to count accurately. But the lives we kill through judicial imperfection is something we know of and can directly prevent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakahura

"The bible doesn't have glaring grammatical errors, direct contradictions with itself"

I'm confused by this statement, I have difficulty reconciling "An eye for an eye" with Jesus's message of forgivness and turning the other cheek.

Two different books. Old Testament vs New. For Christians, the old is more a history lesson of what happened up to the New. The New however superceeds the Old.

Forgiveness is now mostley paramount, but not at the expense of your beliefs and well being.

-S

I have no dispute how either of these books purport to be written.

I said that.....

plenty of Christians behave as if their Bible is the word of God.

Do unto others as you will have done unto you... or something.

Although here we don't have capital punishment. I'm pretty sure the last Australian hung was later found innocent. At least one of the last few certainly was.

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. - Gandalf

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Who are you to take that risk or sacrifice on behalf of another's life?

Someone who accepts the possible risks for the benefit of everyone.

Quote:

As you say it is almost definitely someone else's life that will be wrongly taken. You can sacrifice your own life but to sacrifice a life on behalf of another faceless innocent is an abomination of everything that our nations stand for. The constitution demands that that not happen. That the rights of one man to live cannot knwoingly be sacrificed for some statistical benefit.

Hardly. The point is, if you can prove beyond a resonable doubt is your answer, and people who are a lot smarter than both you and I came up with it. Someone at some point will be caught up in the system, but there is nothing you can do about it since many more would die at the hands of killers if you remove the punishment. So in actuallity, you are savings lives.

Quote:

It is also a spurrious argument to say that since car accidents cause death yet we cannot stop driving, so too must the consequences of the death penalty be judged. That doesn't work out because the death penalty is not an essential of the economy and the growth of society. The same with daily living. Those examples are not relavent because they are outside the context of the calculated and delivered death penalty. The judiciary is deliberately seperate from the main of daily life. It is meant as an impartial method for looking at individual crime and punishment.

Wrong answer. It is very much a strain on the economy and budgets of the state, and abolishing it actually has a negative impact on the growth of society. Murders rise, people become paranoid, economy and loss of productive growth all suffer.

Quote:

And to top it all off I could make an inverse argument that the life of an innocent is far too valuable to risk in favour of capital punishment therefore I am willing to sacrifice the lives the death penalty might save so that the justice system might not be responsible for an irreversible sentense. That however is not my position but it is just as viable as yours Subman. The way I differentiate it however is that when people die as a result of the death penalty we could prevent it, knowingly. It is directly our actions. However when someone is killed by a criminal because we didn't do one thing or another for good reason that is the responsibility of the person who killed. The alleged benefits, as yet unconfirmed, of the death penalty insist that there are phantom lives to be saved, something we judge by an absense of murder. That is difficult to count accurately. But the lives we kill through judicial imperfection is something we know of and can directly prevent.

No, because you re-enforce the behavior. You have taken a crime with severe consequences and made it worse by removing the consequences. Its stupid to think that you are saving lives by not taking lives of those that deserve nothing better. It is unfortunate that an innocent (even though I bet this is such a rarity, it is almost uncountable) may get caught up in it, but in a perfect world, this would not only not happen, in that same perfect world, no one would also be getting murdered.

My one problem I have right now though - every effort should be taken to prove or disprove someones guilt. No one should be denied DNA testing if it could possibly help their case - period. But make no mistake, if you can't prove that you are not guilty after a jury has convicted you, and you went through the mandatory round of appeals (You have no choice but for automatic appeals in this country), then tough. Chances are at this point 99.9999999999999% that you did it.

A thought to ponder:

Quote:

"While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed...In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century...Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction."

Karl Spence

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakahura

I have no dispute how either of these books purport to be written.

I said that.....

plenty of Christians behave as if their Bible is the word of God.

Can't argue that. Some whackos out there, even in Christianity too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

.....Two different books. Old Testament vs New. For Christians, the old is more a history lesson of what happened up to the New. The New however superceeds the Old.

Forgiveness is now mostley paramount, but not at the expense of your beliefs and well being.

-S

Nope.

Mt. 5:17-19
17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Romans 3:31
31. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Romans 7:12
12. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

I Cor. 14:37b
37. ...... let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command.

(The "New Testament" wasn't compiled until many centuries after Pauls' death, so the only commands he could've been speaking of is the Torah).

And finally: Acts 24:14

14However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

I believe I've made my case. http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k8.../popcorn-1.gif

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by P_Funk

Who are you to take that risk or sacrifice on behalf of another's life?

Someone who accepts the possible risks for the benefit of everyone.

That isn't an answer. Thats just reaffirming your position. You didn't answer how you feel the right to take other people's lives into your own hands.

Quote:

Someone at some point will be caught up in the system, but there is nothing you can do about it since many more would die at the hands of killers if you remove the punishment. So in actuallity, you are savings lives.

You assume that deterrance is 100% confirmed, which it is not conclusively, and secondly you assume that the punishment is legitimate because it exists. The correlation between a healthy society and the death penalty is not absolute. There are plenty of exmaples to contradict the assertion.

Quote:

Wheres your proof? The United States spends millions on incarceration every year and is as such the most incarcerated nation in the world. The lack of preventative action in the US in favour of reactive policies cost significantly more. That is the drain on budgets. The economic impacts itself are not correct. If the lack of a death penalty will cause economic instability why then is Canada's dollar bridging on equalizing with the American dollar? Why is our economy booming and why are our crime rates significantly lower than the US's while we haven't had the death penalty since 1976?

You offer no proof of this rather broad assertion. And certainly you can't proove it.

Quote:

Its not re-enforcing the bad behavior just because you draw back a penalty. If thats the case then all cases where the state over steps its bounds should not be reversed for fear of sending a message that the crime is acceptable. The penalty is not being removed. Life in prison is its own penalty with deep consequences, so don't overdramatize it. And again we see the fundamental disrespect for universal life. "Those that don't deserve better". They get to expect life because its their right to it, regardless. Its at that point that you and I cannot meet anywhere because the fundamental philosophy of life and the rights in the constitution are seen differently by us two.

And I don't discount any small chance that an innocent be killed because to you and me 99.9 is a very small chance but in a country of millions and a world of billions that number doesn't end up being too big for more than a few people. I think you overestimate the effectiveness and unbiased nature of your judiciary. So many innocents have been found guilty of severe crimes. It only stands to reason that some of those innocent will find their way onto death row. With how District Attorneys and Judges are politicized in the US the demand for the Death penalty exceeds its need in many cases. Its not so simple as to say "tough luck". It isn't luck if we are in control at every level.

Quote:

A thought to ponder:

Quote:

Karl Spence

-S

And I reply

Quote:

When in Gregg v. Georgia the Supreme Court gave its seal of approval to capital punishment, this endorsement was premised on the promise that capital punishment would be administered with fairness and justice. Instead, the promise has become a cruel and empty mockery. If not remedied, the scandalous state of our present system of capital punishment will cast a pall of shame over our society for years to come. We cannot let it continue.
--Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1990

Quote:

Evidence of innocence is irrelevant!
--Mary Sue Terry, former Attorney General of Virginia (replying to an appeal to introduce new evidence from a prisoner sentenced to death).

How about this one.

Quote:

Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
--John Donne

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

That is not a Christian religion then, but probably more of a Jewish one if you follow the Old testament over the new or equal to the new. This is a fullfilling, but it is also a replacement. It is true that many of the books were written after Jesus walked the Earth, but they are a compilation of what he has said, and instead of replacing, I would say it supercedes the old. That would probably be a better way of describing it.

Quote:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." — Jeremiah 31:31-34

This breaks the old. But there is plenty more to support the breaking of the old as well. I think about 30+ or more versus in total.

Also, the old covenent is called 'old and flawed' and replaced.

-S

PS. SOme more info on the subject:

Quote:

With God's promises to a holy nation so plenteous but with Israel's sins so evident, the Old Testament prophets were faced with a dilemma: do God's promises to Israel remain intact, and if so, how can they? Though the prophets without exception envision God first punishing Israel because of its sin and then glorifying it, it was Jeremiah, in particular, who spelled out in covenant terms God's solution to their problem: God would enter into a "new covenant" relationship with Israel and Judah, forgive his people their sin, and write his righteous law in their hearts (Isaiah 53 teaches, of course, that this forgiveness is the outcome of the vicarious atoning death of God's Suffering Servant):

"The day will come," says the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife," says the Lord.
"But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day," says the Lord. "I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people...And I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins." (Jer 31:31-34, New Living Translation)

The Old Testament period closed with the last of the writing prophets still exhorting the returnees from Babylon: "Remember to obey the instructions of my servant Moses, all the laws and regulations that I gave him on Mount Sinai for all Israel" (Mal 4:4). Obviously, this returned remnant was not the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy. How then was Jeremiah's prophecy fulfilled? Or has it been fulfilled yet? How precisely does the New Testament portray its fulfillment?

So I guess you can say - the 10 commandments still stand, but that is it. There is more to this story if you care to read. Let me know. I'll just post it anyway:

Quote:

One New Covenant or Two?

The phrase "new covenant" does not occur again in canonical Scripture until the night of the last Passover seder that our Lord ate with his disciples, on which solemn occasion he spoke of the cup as "the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20; see 1 Cor 11:25). For good reason one might conclude that here is incontrovertible testimony that the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 found its inaugural fulfillment in the death of Jesus Christ and that those who through simple faith presently partake of the benefits of Christ's purchased redemption are the people described in that passage. J. Dwight Pentecost writes: "The disciples who heard the Lord refer to the new covenant in the upper room the night before His death would certainly have understood Him to be referring to the new covenant of Jeremiah 31."1 But if this is so, Dwight Pentecost, John Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie, all three being leading dispensational scholars at Dallas Theological Seminary in their time, would have had to conclude that the disciples misunderstood Christ's sacramental assertion for they affirm that there are two separate and distinct new covenants referred to in Holy Scripture, namely, the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 for Israel and the new covenant of Luke 22 for the church, the latter covenant being completely unknown to revelation prior to Christ's last seder statement.
Pentecost himself divides the references to the two new covenants in the New Testament into their respective groups: "The references in the gospels and in Hebrews 8:6; 9:15; 10:29; and 13:20...refer to the new covenant of the church, Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:16...refer to the new covenant with Israel, and Hebrews 12:24...refer[s], perhaps, to both, emphasizing the fact of the mediation accomplished and the covenant program established without designating its recipients." According to Pentecost's division of passages, the New Testament contains only two clear references to Jeremiah's new covenant to be fulfilled at some time future to the church age with Israel, namely, Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:16; all the rest pertain to the new covenant first spoken of by Jesus and being fulfilled presently in this age with the church.2 An examination of these two passages, however, will prove that they, like all the others, point to a present fulfillment of the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 by the church today and that there is, in fact, only one new covenant referred to in Scripture.
Hebrews 8:7-13

In this passage the author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 in its entirety in connection with his comment that Christ, the mediator, by his death "guarantees for us a better covenant with God, based on better promises" (Heb 8:6), which better promises he then finds summarily given in the Jeremiah quotation itself. B. F. Westcott in his commentary on this letter concurs that these "better promises" are "such as are contained in the divine description which follows."3 If this is so, then Hebrews 8:7-13 refers to the new covenant that is being fulfilled in this age by the church. Oswald T. Allis declares in his Prophecy and the Church: "It would be hard to find a clearer reference to the gospel age in the Old Testament than in these verses in Jeremiah; and the writer of Hebrews obviously appeals to it as such."4 It would appear, then, that John Walvoord is grasping at straws when he writes:

The argument hangs on the point that the Mosaic covenant was not faultless—was never intended to be an everlasting covenant (Heb. 8:7). In confirmation of this point, the new covenant of Jeremiah is cited at length, proving that the Old Testament itself anticipated the end of the Mosaic law in that a new covenant is predicted to supplant it. The writer of Hebrews singles out of the entire quotation the one word new and argues that this would automatically make the Mosaic covenant old (Heb. 8:13). A further statement is made that the old covenant is "becoming old" and is "nigh unto vanishing away." It should be noted that nowhere in this passage is the new covenant with Israel declared to be in force. The only argument is that which was always true—the prediction of a new covenant automatically declares the Mosaic covenant as a temporary, not an eternal covenant.5

Is it feasible that the author of Hebrews quoted the entire Jeremiah passage (131 words in the Nestle edition as well as in the Aland edition of the Greek New Testament) just to use only the one word "new" that is in it, and then to prove by this one word only the fact that the Old Testament anticipated the passing of the Mosaic economy? Is it not much more likely that his purpose, as it is throughout his letter, is to show his readers that what Jesus did at Calvary and is presently doing for them annuls the Mosaic economy here and now? Does he not, then, also quote Jeremiah to spell out in summary fashion the "better promises" to which he alludes in 8:6 that are clearly in force because of Jesus' mediatorship? How he could have been clearer in his teaching that Christ's "better covenant" by which he obtained his present high priestly ministry (Heb 8:1-6) was fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy is, indeed, difficult to see.
Hebrews 10:16

This verse follows a discussion of the replacing of the Old Testament sacrificial system by the once-for-all offering of the body of Jesus Christ (see 10:10, 12) and is again a quotation of Jeremiah 31:33.
In 10:9 appears the somewhat enigmatic statement: "He cancels the first in order to establish the second." According to the New Scofield Reference Bible this verse teaches that the new covenant "secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of a repentant Israel, with whom the New Covenant will yet be ratified" (1317). But where such teaching lies in the verse will elude an observant reader. Commentators are generally agreed that the "first" refers to the inadequate Old Testament sacrificial system discussed in 10:1-8.6 Westcott interprets the "second" as "the fulfillment of the divine will by rational self-devotion," while Owen regards it as "the way of the expiation of sin, and of the completed sanctification of the church by the coming [see 10:5, 7, 9], and mediation, and sacrifice of Christ." I prefer Owen's understanding of "second" because of its fullness, but, regardless of one's preference here, it is clear that the author of Hebrews stresses throughout this section that in Christ's incarnation (10:5) and self-sacrifice (10:12, 14) he fulfilled God's will (10:7, 9), in which will the Christian is sanctified (10:10). And he expressly states in 10:14: "For by that one offering he perfected forever all those whom is making holy." The Holy Spirit, the author continues, also testifies to us of Christ's work of perfecting sinners (10:15a). And how does the Holy Spirit do this? Precisely by adding further testimony to the witness of Psalm 40:6-8 (see 10:5-7). And this testimony the author of Hebrews finds in Jeremiah 31:31-34:
First [the Holy Spirit] says,

"This is the new covenant I will make with my people on that day, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their hearts so they will understand them,
and I will write them on their minds so they will obey them."

Then he adds:

"I will never again remember their sins and lawless deeds."

The author of Hebrews concludes from the promise of removal of sin in Jeremiah 31:34: "Now when sins have been forgiven, there is no need to offer any more sacrifices" (10:18), a conclusion previously implied in 10:14. There can be no doubt that Jeremiah's prophecy, according to the author of Hebrews, does have reference to this present age in its forecasting a time when God would completely exonerate the sinner who is the beneficiary of the promises of the new covenant and do away with the Old Testament sacrificial system by the death-work of Christ.
Since the two passages that Dwight Pentecost refers to a yet-to-be-fulfilled new covenant in the future with Israel in actuality refer to the covenant's "better promises" that are being fulfilled in this present age, there is no evidence for two new covenants. Pentecost's bifurcation of the several New Testament references to the new covenant into two groups, one for Israel and one for the church, is purely arbitary, done only in the interest of supporting the dispensational contention that the Old Testament did not speak of this age. It is much truer to Scripture to affirm that Jeremiah's prophecy speaks of but one new covenant, legally instituted by Christ by his coming and death and presently being fulfilled by the building of Christ's church in this age.
The Old Testament Covenant Program and the New Testament Church

The postulation of two entirely separate and distinct new covenants by classic dispensationalist scholars, as we have said, is the result of a larger error: their determination to allow no connection whatever to exist between the Old Testament covenant program and the New Testament church. To illustrate how completely is the imagined dichotomy between Old Testament revelation and this present church age, I quote C. I. Scofield:

When Christ appeared to the Jewish people, the next thing, in the order of revelation as it then stood, should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom. The long period...of the outcalling of the Church...was as yet locked up in the secret counsels of God."7

But the New Testament knows of no such dichotomy and indicates that this present age of the church was seen, though its details were not as clear as now, by the Old Testament prophets (Eph 3:5). Note the following New Testament data:

1. According to Peter in Acts 2:16-21 Joel predicted the appearance of this present church age.
2. Peter also expressly declares in Acts 3:24 that "starting with Samuel, every prophet spoke about what is happening today.
3. Completely apart from James' citation of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:15-18 as a composite prophetic portrayal of the calling of the Gentiles to salvation in this age, the fact that the church leaders in Acts 15 would even entertain for debate the question whether Gentiles coming into the church should be circumcised or not implies that they regarded the church of which they were members as "covenant Israel." In this they agreed with Christ himself for, since in Jewish thinking all mankind was comprised of either Jews or pagan Gentiles, when Jesus declared that the church should regard him who refused church discipline as "a pagan" (Matt 18:17) it is obvious that Jesus was viewing his church as "Israel."
4. In Acts 26:22-23 Paul declares before King Agrippa that he taught "nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen—that the Messiah would suffer and be the first to rise from the dead as a light Jews to and Gentiles alike" It is evident then that the Old Testament prophets spoke of this present age.
5. In 1 Peter 1:10-12, after declaring that the Old Testament prophets had prophesied of the "grace that should come to you," that is, Christians of this age, and had diligently searched into the question of the time and circumstances of Christ's suffering and subsequent glory, Peter informs his readers that God revealed to his prophets that "these things would not happen during their lifetime, but many years later, during yours"—you to whom "this good news has been announced...in the power of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven." Clearly Peter believed that the Old Testament prophets knew about and predicted the objective saving events of this age.
6. While it is true that the Jeremiah prophecy states that the new covenant was to be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, it must be noted that the church was in fact originally wholly Jewish, only later becoming predominantly Gentile through the ministry of the apostle Paul.
7. An interpretation that affirms that the church is presently fulfilling Jeremiah's new covenant must necessarily see an organic continuity between the people of God in both the Old and New Testaments. But this is precisely what Paul teaches in the olive-tree passage in Romans 11:16-24 and in the commonwealth-of-Israel passage in Ephesians 2:11-20.
8. The interpretation that I am advocating here must also necessarily hold that the church today is true spiritual Israel. But again, this is precisely what Paul calls the church in Galatians 6:16, and he implies as much in his references to the saints of the church as the "seed of Abraham" (Gal 3:9, 29; Rom 9:6-8). In Philippians 3:3 he describes those who worship God in the spirit, who rejoice in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh as "the circumcision," that is, as true Israelites (see Rom 2:26-29).

In light of these data it is an act of futility to deny the connection that Holy Scripture makes between Jeremiah's prophecy and the New Testament church.8 But nothing in this interpretation of the new covenant means that God is through dealing today with Jewish people. There is an elect remnant among racial Israel (Rom 11:1-7). Therefore, throughout this age elect Jews who "turn from their unbelief" are grafted into the good olive tree of the church (Rom 11:23). Since this is so, the new covenant of Jeremiah applies soteriologically today both to Jews and to Gentiles.9
The "Better Promises" of Jeremiah 31

Few Bible students today would doubt that Jesus was referring to Jeremiah 31:31 when he spoke of the cup as "the new covenant in my blood." By his vicarious death-work at Calvary, Jesus inaugurated the prophesied new covenant of Jeremiah, and all who believe in Christ—among both Jews and Gentiles—receive the spiritual blessings foretold in that covenant. Paul declares in 2 Corinthians 3:6 that he and the Corinthian believers were "ministers of the new covenant." And the author of Hebrews (who I happen to believe was Paul), as we have seen, teaches that Jesus by his death became the mediator of the new covenant (9:15; 12:24) that is based upon "better promises" than the old covenant and that insures the perfection of the sanctified. What are these better promises? In a word, once-for-all forgiveness and sanctification!
A close reading of the Jeremiah prophecy will show that the emphasis throughout is on the spiritual preparation of a people to be the people of God. This preparation is divinely accomplished (see the "I will...") through the judicial forgiveness of their sins and the working in them of an internal righteousness and desire to keep the commandments of God. Both aspects of this preparation are made their possession, we discover from New Testament theology in general, through the obedient life and the atoning death, resurrection, and intercessory ministry of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying ministry of his indwelling Spirit. But writing as he was to Jewish Christians who understandably might have had little awareness of the indwelling Spirit's ministry since Old Testament revelation was concerned primarily with a religion reflected in an objective priesthood, fleshly sacrifices, and a visible tabernacle and temple, the author of Hebrews emphasized Christ's high priestly ministry as an advancement over and ultimate fulfillment of the Levitical system in all its aspects. This is not to say that he neglects completely the Spirit's ministry (see Heb 6:4; 10:29); it simply is to point up that the author's main purpose is to contrast the Levitical system and Christ's mediatorial work, which work he sees (and which work in truth is) the ultimate ground of both the Christian's justification and his sanctification. A clear distinction, then, between Christ's work and the Spirit's work is not drawn in this letter; rather, the author attributes both operations to Christ's active and passive obedience: "He came once for all time, at the end of the age, to remove the power of sin forever by his sacrificial death for us" (Heb 9:26); "...our High Priest offered himself to God as one sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down at the place of highest honor at God's right hand" (Heb 10:12); "what God want is for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time" (Heb 10:10; "...by that one offering he perfected forever all those whom he is making holy" (Heb 10:14). Thus the author of Hebrews traces the "better promises" of Jeremiah's prophecy to their fulfillment in the justifying and sanctifying work of our great High Priest, Christ Jesus, by whom "God alone made it possible for [us] to be in Christ Jesus" (1 Cor 1:30).

Yermiyahu (Jerimiah) 31:33-34 already refutes half of your argument right there.

33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'

Which law is being referred to here other than Torah?

Mt. 12:9-12

9. Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10. and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" 11. He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12. How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

Mt. 22: 34-40

34. Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36. "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37. Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38. This is the first and greatest commandment. 39. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

And another issue to deal with is the fact that "Jesus" himself closely followed the Torah and was knowledgeable of it as well as the Talmud (as signified by the presence of MANY Talmudic idioms and saying throughout his speeches).

Luke 14:1-5
1. One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. 2. There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. 3. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?" 4. But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. 5. Then he asked them, "If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?"

Compared to Exodus 23:5 and Exodus 23:12

5: If you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden, and you might not want to help him, [but you should] make every effort to help him.

......

12: You may do your work six days, but on the seventh day you must cease; so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave may be refreshed, and [also] the stranger.

"Jesus" also observed the sabbath and celebrated the festivals such as Pesach (Passover), Sukkot, etc. all of which are events that are commanded to be observed in the Torah. Why would he observe customs and traditions that you claim have been abolished?

Mt. 26:17-18

17. On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?" 18. He replied, "Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, 'The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.' "

Luke 2:41-42

.....41. Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom.

Exodus 23:14-16
14: Three times a year you are to celebrate with Me.

15: You must keep the festival of Matzos. You must eat matzos for seven days, as I have commanded you. [This festival must be celebrated] at the appointed time, during the month when the grain is ripened, for in it [at this time] you went out of Egypt. Do not appear before My Presence empty-handed. 16: [You must also keep] the Festival of Harvest, [with bringing bikurim] the first fruits of your labor, which you planted in the field; [also] the Festival of Ingathering, at the close of the year, when you gather in [the fruits of] your labor from the field.

So how do you explain that your messiah has come to abolish the very scriptures that he himself followed and obeyed even as a child all throughout his adulthood? And when he is asked about the tribulation (as you call it), why does he encourage those who will be fleeing persecution to pray that their escape will not take place during the Sabbath if your claim is that the Sabbath has been abolished?

Mt. 24:20
.....20. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath......

Lastly, I believe you've misunderstood the entire concept of "doing away with the old" in order to make way for the new.

What I notice as a consistent theme is the emphasis of making the Torah a law both of heart AND mind. Meaning that the "old" covenant emphasized action expecting the people of Israel to follow the Torah and incorporate the nature of the Torah into themselves. But we're selfish, and stubborn; and we broke the Torah again and again, but the Torah itself was never declared "abolished."

What is really meant here is a RE-newal of the covenant, to inscribe the Torah on our conscience as well as our actions. The Torah has not and will not be abolished until heaven and earth are no longer, this was quite clear in Mt. 5:17-19 and merely repeats the same affirmation all throughout the Tanakh and even the "New" testament.

Romans 2:13
13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Just my 2 cents.

I am a Christian, but the rest of the world (for some enigmatic reason) thinks that all Christians are gun-toting, NASCAR watching Bush voters that support Capital Punishment. In addition, we are apparently all ignorant people who place no value on human life.

*"incorrect" buzzer noise*

I'm probably one of the more liberal Baptists you'll ever meet in your lifetime. Okay, I support gun rights, that's about it.

Death Penalty - Christians are (or should) be taught in scripture to "turn the other cheek", and that killing another for their sins is totally not the right way to go. For some reason, most Americans get turned on at the idea of a guy getting killed for killing someone else. I see it as total and complete waste of effort! All it is is personal revenge, which, no matter who you are, is completely unacceptable: legally, morally, ethically...whatever. It's not a good thing. Death penalty = :down:.

Gay/Lesbian rights = Kind of a touchy issue. Yes, The Bible specifically states that "for a man to lie with another man" is an unholy act. BUT, in America, we have outlined separation of church and state (which, by the way, I support because otherwise, we'd be just like Iran). If people want to live like that, it's not my right to tell them "No, you can't do that because I don't approve." If I can start arresting people for getting on my nerves and taking actions that I don't agree with, our prisons would be even more crowded than they already are. No, I don't like the idea of gay marriage...but who am I to make/support a law that denies people basic rights as a citizen of The United States of America? After all, we were granted the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. If someone is "happy" being with a member of the same sex, then I have no right as an American to deny the right of another American. Does any of that make sense?

Bush= :rotfl:...that's about all I have to say about that....you really don't want to get me started on a bigger rant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radtgaeb

\Death Penalty - Christians are (or should) be taught in scripture to "turn the other cheek", and that killing another for their sins is totally not the right way to go.

Hi and welcome to the forum. Could you post your support for this belief?