How is Deuteronomy 13:6-11 different than the Islamic approach to apostasy?

[stone]

x

 

[Globalnomad]

You cannot compare extremist individuals doing something, and that something being the official policy of the state, or of the religion.

 

[stone]

x

 

[stone]

x

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Can you kind of clarify the 2nd half of your sentence lol?

I get the Christian beliefs part, but I meant can you elaborate the part after that.

I'm pretty bad with the OT stuff. And I'm not proud of that

Jesus message was of forgiveness and compassion. When they brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus, and they stated, that according to the law, she was to be stoned to death, Jesus response was contrary to that old law. We don't stone people caught in adultery or homosexuality as specified in the Old Testament. Also, as Christians, we don't follow the eye for an eye law of retribution, or at least we're not suppose to. However, look at the law suits that are in our courts, and obviously, that law is not only followed, by they've gone beyond it.

As others have stated, we are people of the New Testament, not the Old.

We follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jim

 

[Globalnomad]

That's a good point, but it's still a factor that exist, just not by the state, but by the people.

Sorry, can you rephrase that???

 

[stone]

x

 

[stone]

x

 

[Globalnomad]

...The difference is that the Jews were actually commanded by God to do this where Muslims were commanded to do so by a false prophet.

... to say Muslims can do it because pre-advent Jews did it is to say all religions are equally true and their doctrines and precepts are all equally valid or that the truth is not knowable.

...No matter how you look at it, you can't make a judgment about Muslim religious practices without invalidating the religion by showing it contrary to reason/natural law and to divine law. The Jews were right, the Muslims are not.

QC, if that reasoning was correct, you would have to be able to apply it to other precepts too. You would have to be able to say, for example, that the Jews were right about saying that stealing is a crime, but the Muslims are not. Or that "to say Muslims can say that stealing is wrong because pre-advent Jews did it is to say all religions are equally true and their doctrines are equally valid".

See? It doesn't make sense.

The truth is, all religions - false ones too - have many elements of Truth in them. you have to examine each precept on its own terms in its own context. You cannot say that any Muslim precept is wrong simply because Islam is false. It is, but that is no grounds for dismissing any of its precepts as wrong. You have to be able to dismiss them one by one, with independent reasons.

 

[Globalnomad]

The persecution by jews towards those that attempt to lure jews away from judaism is not a state sponsered activity, it exist and it exist underground by the people. The legal system can't touch it, it's organized crime. I have many disturbing letters that probably should not be posted here.

Oh, OK, thanks. Yes, that's my point.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, what happened here is that jesus used the Torah against them. According to the Torah, you can not participate in a stoneing less you have no sins against you, so you would have to go into the temple and offer a sin sacrifice. Any man that was in the crowd that was completely clean could have stoned her, but when Jesus said to let him without sin, cast the 1st stone, none of them had offered that sacrifice and none of them were clean, but Jesus.

Deutaronimy doesn't say that the persons carrying out the execution, must be free from sin.

you shall bring the man (or woman) who has done the evil deed out to your city gates and stone him to death.
The testimony of two or three witnesses is required for putting a person to death; no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. At the execution, the witnesses are to be the first to raise their hands against him; afterward all the people are to join in. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. Dueteronomy 17:5-7.

Jesus was addressing the fact that no one among the crowd, was free from sin, past, present or future. He didn't ask, whom among you has purified himself, so as to be worthy to stone the woman?


Jim

 

[stone]

x

 

[JimR-OCDS]

he wouldn't have had to explain, because they all knew.

the ordinances of stoning are also in the Talmud. According to jewish custom, what is written in the torah, also coincides with the Oral Torah, or the Talmud. To the jews, what is written is only half of the Torah. The other half is passed on by word of mouth, and can only be taught by a rabbi.

I'm only mentioning what was said to me by jews. I really do not want to search through the Talmud, but i'm gonna have to now.

Well, I did look into the Talmud, and I could not find anything specifying that those who were to carry out the execution, were to first be purified from sin.

In fact, it says nothing different that what the New American Bible says, and this is, the first witnesses of the crime, were to throw the first stones. Then, ALL the people would follow in. Would ALL the people to first have been purified through sacrifice first?

If we were to interpret the Jesus teaching, as you suggest, stoning of adulterers would never have ended and with the first Christians who being Jews, would've continued to follow the law. Such is not the case however, because they understood Jesus teaching, to mean what St. Paul taught, "ALL MEN have sin," and all are unworthy.



Jim

 

[stone]

x

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Then why did they stop for simply having sin?

Because Jesus showed that no one was without sin and therefore, not worthy to judge another person.

Only God can judge.

Jim

 

[stone]

not judgeing another does not add up, folks would have tried to use that line all the time to get out of being executed. There are so many ways to become unclean. It's gotta be in the talmud, mishna? just gotta figure out what the hebrew word for adultery is...

 

[Lady Bug]

Well, I did look into the Talmud, and I could not find anything specifying that those who were to carry out the execution, were to first be purified from sin.

In fact, it says nothing different that what the New American Bible says, and this is, the first witnesses of the crime, were to throw the first stones. Then, ALL the people would follow in. Would ALL the people to first have been purified through sacrifice first?

If we were to interpret the Jesus teaching, as you suggest, stoning of adulterers would never have ended and with the first Christians who being Jews, would've continued to follow the law. Such is not the case however, because they understood Jesus teaching, to mean what St. Paul taught, "ALL MEN have sin," and all are unworthy.



Jim

I think Jesus was trying to prove some sort of point when he stopped the woman from being stoned. I think he was trying to prove that because of their rampant hypocrisy, they were in no position to call someone else a sinner.

 

[stone]

x

 

[stone]

x

 

[JimR-OCDS]

well... she was caught in the act.

And Jesus was pointing out that those in the crowd, had also sinned.

Now, if Jesus was merely pointing out their uncleanliness, and they could've been made clean by offering sacrifice in atonement for their sins, why did he not just tell the crowd to go and make a sacrificial offering, then come back and stone her? He didn't, but was making the point that they too were sinners and only a person who was without sin, could be worthy enough to stone the woman.


Jim