Islamic Jihadist Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Sentenced to Death for Boston Bombing

BombingBOSTON (Boston Globe) — Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death Friday for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the terror attack on the finish line of the storied race that killed three people and injured more than 260 others.

Tsarnaev, 21, had been convicted last month in US District Court in Boston of 17 charges that carried the possibility of the death penalty.

The death sentence handed down Friday by the seven-woman, five-man jury came at the end of a lengthy, high-profile trial. Tsarnaev, who had taken a sharp turn from hopeful immigrant college student to radical jihadist, also was convicted in the murder of a police officer.

The April 15, 2013, bombing was one of the worst terror attacks in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001.

Wearing a blazer and a collared shirt, Tsarnaev, as has been his habit for most of the trial, had no expression as a court clerk read the verdict sentencing him to death. The jury took 14 1/2 hours over three days to render its decision on the penalty.

Continue reading this story >>

Photo: Aaron Tang

  • Connect with Christian News


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • staad

    josh groban look-alike killed with willfull intent. probably grateful he will see his brother in hell sooner than expected.

    • Dave L

      Remember the thief on the cross. There is always hope.

  • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

    I stand for the sanctity of life from the moment of conception until natural death. Depriving him of freedom for the rest of his life is punishment enough and allowing him to live gives him a chance to repent and find Christ before he dies. Justice must be tempered with mercy.

    • Psk6565

      Who determines the punishment? God or our understanding?

      He had 19 years of mercy.

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        You don’t need me to justify your position. I used to be in favor of capital punishment (like any good Republican) but several things changed my mind. Chuck Colson’s prison ministry, Carla Faye Tucker’s story, and especially the disconnect between being strongly pro-life and strongly pro-death. The world often attacks pro-life Christians because of this seeming inconsistency, but as I began to study the Catholic Church’s teaching on this subject, I became more convinced that pro-life can’t be conditional. We’re all going to die and God alone knows how soon our heart will turn to Him, if ever. This man will never see freedom in this life again, and if he doesn’t find Christ he will never see freedom for eternity. I wouldn’t want that on my conscience. I understand society’s need for revenge, but I just refuse to take part in it.

        • Psk6565

          So, you can’t justify your position to yourself either.
          A baby is innocent and a criminal is guilty. It is simple.
          You would rather the innocent people pay (tax payers) and the guilty be given shelter, food and comfort.

          You would rather innocent people be treated as guilty.

          Genesis 9:6
          “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I’m guilty. You’re guilty. Do you want to pay for every wrong thing you’ve ever done? That’s justice. I abhor the taking of innocent life and the remaining Boston Marathon bombers should be deprived of their lives for what he did, not by death but by taking away any hope of freedom.

            But to make a case for capital punishment on the economic merits means you’re placing a monetary value on a human life. What about a criminal sentenced to life in prison for second degree murder? Why should I pay to keep him alive? He’s never going to see freedom, he might as well die and save us the money.

            As for your citation from Genesis, I won’t get into a theological explanation of the new covenant. That’s for your pastor to explain to you. If you really yearn for retributive justice, then Islam is the religion for you. They’re into it big time. For me, I will put my trust in Jesus who shed His innocent blood that I might live.

  • weasel1886

    I generally don’t like the DP but I don’t have any sympathy for the guy

    • Psk6565

      Neither does God command us to have sympathy. If we do, then further murderers will be emboldened.

      Deuteronomy 19:13 Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood[b] from Israel, so that it may be well with you.

      • Dave L

        You are citing civil Laws God gave to ancient Israel only. He did not give them to other nations. Jesus nowhere teaches “an eye for an eye” but instead forgave the adulterous woman they were going to execute. He condemned the executioners instead for their hypocrisy.

        • Psk6565

          1. And He only gave the Psalms to Israel, so why do you read them? Would you rather us live in an unrighteous nation?
          Deuteronomy 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

          2. Jesus did not witness the adulterous so he had no authority to bring judgment and he would have disobeyed God’s law if He stoned her. Yes, he condemned them for committing the adultery with that woman. Nowhere in the law does it say that perfection is a requirement for people to stone criminals.

          3. Are you kind and merciful to your neighbor when you force them to pay for the crimes of convicts? Their money is paying for the murderers food, bed, shelter, etc. The guilty are taken care of by the money of innocent people.

          • Dave L

            Jesus put an end to Old Testament Civil Law and not the Psalms by his crucifixion. In my opinion it is treasonous to force the Laws of one nation over another especially when God who gave them says they do not apply to Christians or Jews since New Testament times. Jesus IS God and he forgave the woman they were trying to execute using his Law, pointing out their hypocrisy instead.

          • Psk6565

            “Jesus put an end to Old Testament Civil Law and not the Psalms by his crucifixion.”

            What is your standard for Civil Law if Christ eradicated the only Civil Law demonstrated by God?

            “Jesus IS God and he forgave the woman they were trying to execute using his Law, pointing out their hypocrisy instead.”

            Again, they were not using His law. The law required 2 witnesses and they were bringing the woman to Jesus and not the authorities to make the judgment.

            He obeyed God and you are claiming that He broke His own law.

          • Dave L

            Where in the Bible does God require any nation other than Old Testament Israel to observe the Law he gave to Israel?

          • Psk6565

            10 Psalm 2:10-12
            Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
            be warned, O rulers of the earth.
            11 Serve the Lord with fear,
            and rejoice with trembling.
            12 Kiss the Son,
            lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
            for his wrath is quickly kindled.
            Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

            How do you kings serve the Lord apart from His civil law?

            Please answer my question as well.

          • Dave L

            Read the entire context Psalm 2:1-12. I see a far different outcome than what you suggest. Name any of the post Sinai Canaanite kings who served the Lord. Besides, if Jesus put an end to the Law, who are we to force it on people? The Apostles themselves refused to do this concerning Gentile converts to Christ in Acts.

          • Psk6565

            I have read the context. You will need to explain why it is different, you can’t just say it is different.

            Why should I name these kings? God commands them to serve Him regardless of whether they do it or not.

            Matthew 5:17 “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.

            “end to the law?” Jesus said not to think that, why do you?

            Are you against forcing the demand that people not murder?

            1 John 5:2
            By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.

          • Dave L

            I simply said I draw a far different conclusion than you in reading the entire context. But, getting back to the original point, the Capital punishment that you would like to see meted out is part of the obsolete Jewish civil Law and not part of the moral Law. It strikes me as a “bait and switch” when you try to push Capital Punishment and defunct Jewish Civil Law on the merits of the Moral Law, especially to cram it down the throats of people God never intended.

            God gave the Law that could not save, to unbelieving Israel to curtail their wickedness under penalty of death.

            He later did away with it and the unbelievers in Israel grafting the believing gentiles into Israel instead.

            Those who are Born Again in both Old Testament and New Testament times, do by nature the moral requirements of the Law. The Sermon on the Mount is Christ’s interpretation of the moral Law and he forbids the violence you crave and retaliation you seek, from his followers.

          • Psk6565

            Acts 23:5
            And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

            Paul seems to think the law was not obsolete, he still honored it.

            Acts 25:11
            If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothingto their charges against me, no one can giveme up to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

            Paul also knew that certain crimes were worthy of death and submitted to it.

            You can’t justify your positions but only assert them.

          • Dave L

            Thanks for the reply. Paul also said the Civil Magistrate bears the sword by Divine appointment. But the point remains, we should not drag obsolete Jewish Law into the present. God did not intend for it to be used by anyone but those he brought out of Egypt, as intro to the first Commandment states. Also, He did not speak the Law nor send Moses to the Canaanites or to anyone else.

            Jesus interpreted the Commandments far differently than the Jews in the Sermon on the Mount, and provided an illustration when he forgave the woman taken by several witness in the capital sin of adultery. He condemned their hypocrisy instead. How many innocent people have the Boston Bomber’s executioners killed?

            Should he be let loose? Of course not, but a life sentence would be more in line with Jesus.

          • Psk6565

            “God did not intend for it to be used by anyone but those he brought out of Egypt”

            Genesis 9:6″Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.”

            God gave this law before the Jews.

            Again, Jesus did not witness the sin, he condemned the Pharisees for committing adultery with her (Unless you believe God commanded sinlessness to judge) and neither was he a civil magistrate. He would have broken Gods law to stone her and join with the hypocrites.

            Sermon on the mount was not an interpretation of the Ten Commandments, unless you can prove that.

            “How many innocent people have the Boston Bomber’s executioners killed?” You will need to give me a civil law in Scripture that will help define what people are worthy of death and what ones are not.

            “Should he be let loose? Of course not, but a life sentence would be more in line with Jesus.”

            How so?

          • Dave L

            The Genesis requirement for death to murderers precedes Jewish Civil law by several hundred years. The civil law is separate from the moral Law.

            Jesus interpreted the Moral Law in the Sermon on the Mount. Jewish civil law required death for willfully violating the Ten Commandments. The requirement of an “eye for an eye” rested on “thou shalt not kill”.

            Jesus began doing away with the Jewish civil Law when he interpreted the Commandment that forbade killing instead as not seeking vengeance but turning the other cheek, and to forgive and bless enemies.

            He formally put an end to Jewish Civil Law by his death on the cross, and finally when he brought destruction to carnal Israel in AD 70.

          • Psk6565

            “The Genesis requirement for death to murderers precedes Jewish Civil law by several hundred years.”

            Yes, and? This shows that God commanded the death penalty to people that weren’t Jews.

            “Jesus interpreted the Moral Law in the Sermon on the Mount.”

            Where does it say that this was an interpretation of the Law?

            “Jesus began doing away with the Jewish civil Law”
            17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;

            Notice He says “or the Prophets…”

          • Dave L

            He came to fulfill (Greek Complete) the Law and the Prophets. It was he who they all spoke of.

            Every time in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus quoted the Jews saying “you have heard it said” etc. he followed with the correct interpretation of the Law. Furthermore, New Testament ethics are based entirely on a correct understanding of the moral Law. If you do not believe this is true, try to imagine doing the opposite of what the Law forbids. Instead of stealing you give. Instead of lying you go out of your way to stand for the truth. Instead of murdering. you work to preserve another’s life, and so on.

            The Sermon on the Mount is the moral Law properly understood that God writes on the hearts of those to whom he imparts the New Birth.

          • Psk6565

            Jesus fulfilled it and did not abolish it.

            Jesus was challenging the misinterpretations of the traditions of the Pharisees.

            Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

            Paul uses the civil law. The civil law is part of the NT ethic

            1 Timothy 5:18 For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.”

          • Psk6565

            If you knew OT law, you would know that this is not written:

            Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

            “it was said” is the repeated thing Christ said. Notice it is not “It is written.” Jesus is talking about the the Pharisees misinterpretations of the Law and is explaining the true interpretation.

          • Dave L

            I forgive your insults. Nonetheless, Jesus gave the Spiritual interpretation of the Law and it forms the basis for New Testament ethics. Remember, His kingdom is not of this world and we are not to be a part of this world. Violence and retaliation is for the world, not for us.

          • Psk6565

            It wasn’t an insult or are telling me that it was commanded in the OT to hate your enemies?

            If you can’t show me, then you will see it as not an insult but I was simply telling you the truth.

            Jesus explained the law as opposed to the Pharisees that said to hate your enemies.

          • Dave L

            All I said was that Jesus gave his interpretation of the moral Law correcting the views of the Jews. I never claimed the Jews were right, only that Jesus gave us the true interpretation of the Law. We need to go back to the original point, Jesus suspended the Civil Law, therefore it has no place today, anywhere. The moral Law, we later discussed as being the frame work for the New Testament ethics and I’ll now add, applies only to Christians.

          • Psk6565

            Then why does Paul use the civil law and submits to laws that punish people with death?

          • Psk6565

            The law is not just for Christians, but ungodly and sinners (No where is Scripture are believers called sinners).
            Notice how you can only get some of these things mentioned, from the civil law.

            1Timothy 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers,[b] liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound[c] doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory ofthe blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

          • Dave L

            Paul is speaking to Christians who have the spiritual interpretation of the Law. If you give the Law to the unregenerate, you wind up with the same bunch that God removed from Israel, grafting in the believing Gentiles instead. If you practice the civil law, you must do it all which includes administering capital punishment to anyone who willfully breaks it. You think the Taliban and Muslims are severe.

          • Psk6565

            So, we are in agreement now, the civil law is in some manner used by Paul and is not done away with as you previously said.

            I thought you said: “God gave the Law that could not save, to unbelieving Israel to curtail their wickedness under penalty of death.”

            You do not want unregenerate men restrained in their evil toward you and your neighbor?

            If you believe that the death penalty is severe, what do you believe of eternal torment?

          • Dave L

            Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

            The last time I looked into it, there were over 300 details they had to observe. According to Paul it is all or nothing.

          • Psk6565

            We are not talking about salvation by law. According to Paul it is all or nothing for justification. Galations 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

            We are talking about justice in society. We will be held accountable for what injustice we cause.

          • Dave L

            Look at the horrible judgments God poured out on Israel during the times of the Law, because of their repeated breaking of the Law. It only heightens judgement for those who have it. None can keep it. I can see where you think it would help to legally “Christianize” America, but it can never be through the Law. It is through the Gospel. Even the Apostles refused to place the Law over the gentile converts during their meeting with James in Acts. Should we try to force it on society in view of this? Besides, they already said they are going to put the Boston Bomber down with Laws already on the books.

          • Psk6565

            Are you suggesting God was cruel for giving the law to Israel?

            What laws should we have and based on who’s wisdom?

          • Dave L

            I’m only saying that Israel could not keep the Law under the most ideal conditions. The Apostles refused to require observing it of Gentile converts. And you want to force it on those you should be evangelizing instead. As I originally said, God spoke the Law to Israel personally. He did not give it to anyone else. It was for them, not us who do by nature the ethics of the Law written in our hearts, provided we are Born Again.

          • Psk6565

            Please answer this: What laws should we have and based on who’s wisdom?

          • Dave L

            I would leave that to the people to decide. Paul tells us to submit to any civil authority as all are from God, good or bad. As Christians, our kingdom is not of this world. We are strangers and foreigners in the world (Hebrews 11:13). We only alienate people who we should be witnessing to when we present ourselves in any political identity. Especially as we discussed, Capital Punishment. Who will the condemned welcome more, the executioner or the minister of the Gospel pleading for his life?

          • Psk6565

            So, leave it up to unregenerate people how to live. This is exactly why our nation is the way it is, Christians refuse to be light and refuse place the needs of others above themselves.

            No, Paul tells us to submit to authorities that are a terror to evildoers and that are those that promote good. or do you believe you should disobey God if the say so?

            Again, Paul recognized that there are crimes worthy of death and your alienation thing is simply based on pragmatism.

            “Who will the condemned welcome more, the executioner or the minister of the Gospel pleading for his life?”

            Is it based on being welcomed that we decide what to do?

          • Dave L

            Rev 1:5… “and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. ” Jesus rules over every ruler on Earth now. So it is not dependent on how we vote nor is it dependent on our political involvement. People and Rulers do just as God would have them to do.

            Paul told his listeners to submit to Nero, one of the most wicked ever. Christians also suffered patiently under Nero and other Emperors for not submitting to any ordinances that violated Jesus’ teachings.

            John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

            So, if you give the Law to people, does the wrath of God remain on them? Of course it does because it is not the Gospel. So why are we concerned about making people toe the mark that Israel couldn’t toe? Instead, shouldn’t we remain neutral and provide the Gospel to all, including liberals and conservatives, rather than alienating them by our petty political views?

          • Psk6565

            Jesus rules over every person on Earth now so why stop someone from causing harm to an individual?

            “…not submitting to any ordinances that violated Jesus’ teachings.” So there are times not to submit to governments.

            The wrath of God remains on all men regardless of having the law in writing.

            “So why are we concerned about making people toe the mark that Israel couldn’t toe?” Because we love our neighbor? The law is based on LOVE.

            There is no neutrality and your “petty political views” cause suffering or the well being of your neighbor.

          • Dave L

            Non Christians are under God’s wrath. It extends to their thoughts, choices, and acts. God does not want them to have the Law or they would have it. He wants his people to have Christ instead. The world is a lot like the Titanic. You can try to patch it up, or you can try to reach those about to go under with the Gospel.

          • Psk6565

            So, you are basically telling me that you do not care about peoples temporal well being (Like Christ did) as well as the eternal well being? You would rather have laws that fallen and corrupt men establish, which murder millions, torment millions, etc. then the law of God which provides the means of loving your neighbor (I am not talking about justification)?

          • Dave L

            Think of it this way. In the New Testament Jesus and the Disciples preached the Gospel of the Kingdom. If you study the Sermon on the Mount, God provides for the physical needs as well as the spiritual for those who seek first his kingdom. He also physically heals with or without physicians, and cares for us as he does the birds of the air. So we are covered there. If you care about your neighbor, preach the Gospel of the Kingdom along with the Cross.

            Now consider, nowhere do Jesus and the Disciples go about trying to promote the Law. They in fact did away with it in their teachings against “works”. Also, we have no instance where Paul took the Law to Rome pushing it as a civil code. In fact, he didn’t push the Ten Commandments since converts to Christ have the spiritual “Law” written in their hearts through the New Birth. They simply did not meddle in the affairs of the world.

            Numbers 3:4 “And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai..” We must be careful not to overshoot what God has set forth for us in his word. Preach the Gospel? Yes. Force the Law on civil authorities? No.

          • Psk6565

            I am not denying that we must preach the gospel. That is not my argument.

            15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

            We are commanded to care for the well being of people.

            Matthew 7:23
            And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

            Christ throws those in hell who do not love his law.

            Never once did I suggest forcing law. I am simply desiring that men be saved and live according to God’s word that they my desire His statutes to be the standard.

          • Psk6565

            John 14:15″If you love me, obey my commandments.”

            Christ taught obedience to His commandments.

          • Dave L

            Everyone walking in the Spirit fulfills this. How can the world who doesn’t love Christ do this? It applies only to those in Christ who love him and prove it by their works.

          • Psk6565

            Again, I am not talking about justification. I am talking about the well being of your neighbor, as James talks about. Would you not want “Thou shalt not murder” be the law to protect babies from being murdered?

            Do you believe William Wilberforce to be a bad example of Christianity? He was highly instrumental in abolishing slavery in England.

          • Dave L

            God works all things together for good to those who love the Lord. I think it is safe to say he works all things together for bad for those who don’t. This is why the Gospel is the solution and social initiatives and laws are not. You can save people from committing sins by changing their hearts while blessing them forever in Christ. Or you can legislate morality without changing their hearts and save no one. If laws were the solution you wouldn’t need Police to enforce them. A changed heart requires no supervision.

          • Psk6565

            Again, for the third time, I am not talking about justification. Neither am I talking about laws changing peoples hearts.

            Can you please answer my question?

          • Dave L

            Please re-state your question.

          • Psk6565

            Matthew 15:4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

            You keep talking about Jesus teachings. He advocated ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ against the Pharisee’s traditions. Can you explain this?

          • Dave L

            What is there to explain? The Law was still in force up until the crucifixion, and Jesus was correcting the erroneous interpretation held by the Jews. You must realize that unless a person is born again, the Law can only force obedience under threat of death. With the New Birth the Law isn’t necessary because Believers do naturally the things required in the moral Law. Abraham did naturally the requirements 430 years before Sinai. Abel, Noah and others way before that .

          • Psk6565

            So, why did he break the law with the woman caught in adultery (according to your interpretation, he broke it)? You realize that you make him a sinner by not enforcing the law?

          • Dave L

            Jesus did not break the Law. If he did we are still in our sins. It could very well be that the woman. just as King David who committed adultery and murder under the Law, escaped God’s wrath because God poured the wrath due to them on Jesus instead.

          • Psk6565

            He did if he did not carry out what God commanded. You say Jesus did not stone her as the law required, therefore He broke the law.

          • Dave L

            You must be missing something since Jesus kept the Law without sinning. We know this as a Bible fact. We also know he forgave the woman and didn’t stone her. Could there be something wrong with your understanding? Perhaps this shows serious errors in your way of thinking.

          • Psk6565

            Yes, He was and is sinless, but if you believe that the Pharisees were just in demanding the stoning and then Christ did not follow threw on the just punishment, He broke the law.

          • Psk6565

            You are not reconciling your interpretation with the reality that Jesus was sinless, instead you are making Christ a sinner.

          • Dave L

            How can I make Christ a sinner when Scripture does not? I did not make anything up, I relayed the story as written.

          • Psk6565

            Because of your interpretation. Do you believe that the law required this woman to be stoned?

          • Dave L

            God sent Nathan the prophet to shame David for adultery and murder. That is, Nathan the prophet, with God’s full knowledge and approval, did not stone David as the Law commanded.

            Now, it says Jesus forgave the woman taken in adultery. She did not deny it. How can Jesus who knows everything forgive her for something she didn’t do. She was obviously guilty or he wouldn’t have forgiven her.

          • Psk6565

            The law was not given to God to obey, but given to man to obey. Are you suggesting that God should have required David to be stoned though there were not 2 witnesses to his crime?

            You are saying that Jesus (As the Jewish man that he was, along with being God) did not carry out the sentence that the law required? This makes him a sinner.

          • Dave L

            We know Jesus was sinless. We know he knew the woman committed adultery. We know he forgave her and told her to sin no more (repent).
            So, did he sin? What if, as I said earlier, he took David’s and her punishment on the cross as their substitute? How could he be sinful if he took their place, being executed instead of them?

          • Psk6565

            You are asking if Jesus could have broken the law (be a sinner) to forgive the women? No, He could not sin in order to save.

            Numbers 5:14 “…if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest.”

            The husband did not bring this woman forward, so, it does not apply.

          • Dave L

            Had David not killed Uriah, and he came home to a pregnant wife, he very well could have turned her over to a priest for examination and they both would have been found out. This is why David killed him.

          • Psk6565

            What is the point? It didn’t happen.

          • Dave L

            It didn’t happen because David had Uriah killed.

          • Psk6565

            So, Christ broke the law in order to save this women?

          • Dave L

            Are you accusing Jesus of sinning? The Bible says he was sinless. It also says he forgave the woman. What more can I say?

          • Psk6565

            You are. You are saying that the woman, under the law and according to the law, was worthy of being stoned, but Jesus did not uphold the law.

          • Dave L

            Jesus did not condemn the woman but told her to repent. The Bible also says Jesus fulfilled the Law remaining sinless. How do you interpret this?

          • Psk6565

            Yes, Jesus did not condemn her, but you are saying that she deserved it under the Mosiac law.

            Or

            Their were not 2 witnesses (Jesus revealed to them they were involved in the adultery themselves and the left) and neither were the man and the woman brought forward. This means if Christ followed along with them, he would be in violation of the law.

          • Dave L

            Jesus told her to repent in the context of the charges against her. Jesus knows whether or not the charges are true. Repentance requires sin before repentance becomes possible. = she sinned as charged and He did not condemn her.

          • Psk6565

            So, since Nathan knew that David sinned, though he was the only witness, he could have stoned David, violating the law that there must be two witnesses?

            If Jesus desired to stone her, knowing that she sinned, He could have broken the law?

          • Psk6565

            He didn’t condemn her because there were no witnesses, they all left!

          • Dave L

            John 8:3–4 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

            John 8:10–11 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

          • Psk6565

            Sorry, but how does quoting the verse argue against my point?

          • Dave L

            There is no mention of your point by Jesus. You think he threw the charge out on a technicality. I say he didn’t, not only because he didn’t bring your point up, but because he didn’t condemn the woman for adultery, instead telling her to repent, lending credibility to the original charge. We must view the Laws of Capital Punishment through the New Testament precedents set by Jesus and the Apostle.

          • Psk6565

            Bottom line:
            You say human courts under the the Mosaic Law would have been just to stone her and you said Jesus prohibited it.

          • Dave L

            Back to the Question launched at Jesus; John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

            Jesus replied; John 8:11 Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

            Conclusion, New Testament overrides Old Testament.

          • Psk6565

            There you go. You have Jesus breaking the Law because you think the Pharisees were just.

          • Dave L

            The woman’s accusers were asking Jesus his thoughts on Moses in the case (legit or not) of adultery.

            He replied in the end “neither do I condemn you”.

            This was in the time frame when the New Testament began taking authority over the Old.

          • Psk6565

            Please answer this question:

            Were their 2 witnesses of the crime ready to testify when Jesus said “neither do I condemn you”?

          • Dave L

            John 8:3–4 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

            Witnesses? possibly the Pharisees and scribes (all referred to in the plural tense). If they are not the witnesses, they no doubt could create some or provide some. But that is not the point. The question was about Moses and Capital Punishment for adultery in general.

            Again, the New Testament has priority over the Old.

          • Psk6565

            Um, so you are saying that the Pharisees and the Scribes left but they were somehow still with Jesus and the adulteress when Jesus said “neither do I condemn you”? That is weird logic, man.

            So, Jesus could have broken the law in every place and you would still say “…the New Testament has priority over the Old.”

          • Dave L

            Let me re-phrase it. The scribes and Pharisees possibly were the witnesses. If they were not, they probably knew them, or they could even fabricate false witnesses. But that is not the point.

            Here’s the point. Jesus responded to their question about Moses and the Law requiring death for adultery. Replying to this, Jesus said he would not condemn the woman but told her to repent (stop doing what they accused her of). Thereby continuing to set precedents for the New Testament holding sway over the Old in matters of civil law. He finally did away with the Law as a legal system of works on the cross.

          • Psk6565

            Again, that is weird logic. When Jesus said He did not accuse her, there were no accusers around (Pharisees or Scribes).

            He replied by writing in the dirt and actually telling them to cast the stone if they were not committing adultery themselves (no where in the law does it say you can’t have any sin to cast stones). Then they left, which means there were no witnesses now, therefore it would have been unjust for Jesus to stone her.

            Christ upheld the law, but in your interpretation he breaks the law in order to forgive her. Your Christ is sinful and can’t save you.

          • Dave L

            Jesus did not accuse her. Perhaps you meant to say “condemn her”? At any rate, we know beyond a doubt Jesus remained sinless. We know beyond a doubt he did not condemn the woman taken in adultery. From here we can speculate based on the information we have. I believe he forgave her sin based on his paying for it on the cross. So if he satisfied the Law in this way, it is as if she never sinned. Justice is served and God remains good because her sin is punished.

          • Psk6565

            Alright, I am done. You keep saying He was sinless while at the same time saying that under the law she was worthy of death but Jesus refused to approve of the sentence and take part. As a man under the Mosaic law he needed to submit to the law in order to be a perfect sacrifice acceptable to the Father.

            But she was not worthy of death because their were not 2 witnesses when Christ weeded out the hypocrites. He upheld the law by not taking part with hypocrites.

          • Psk6565

            “You must realize that unless a person is born again, the Law can only force obedience under threat of death.”

            You must realize that I am not talking about justification. You seem to think that I want people to obey the law for salvation. You seem to want any law in this country that is not God’s law.

          • Psk6565

            “You must realize that unless a person is born again, the Law can only force obedience under threat of death.”

            Would you rather your neighbors murdering people because the law does not threaten them with death? Would you rather your neighbors raping others because they are not threatened with death?

          • Psk6565

            I should rather day, the instruction on how to love your neighbor.

          • Psk6565

            The law is in accordance to the gospel.

          • Psk6565

            Instead of restraining evil, you seem to rather allow it and make the innocent party pay for the crimes of others. Based on your idea that Jesus abolished the prophets you have nothing give in order for justice to take place.

          • Psk6565

            If you can’t show where God commanded to hate your enemies than you will see that Jesus was arguing against the Pharisees misinterpretation of the law.

          • Psk6565

            Again, Paul acknowledges crimes that are worthy of death.

            Acts 25:11
            If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death. But if there is nothingto their charges against me, no one can giveme up to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

          • Psk6565

            Question: Who pays for the crime when a murderer is in prison?

        • Psk6565

          Also, how do we determine whether a civil law is just or unjust?

  • FoJC_Forever

    Meanwhile, millions of babies have been murdered, and continue to be murdered, with the approval and help of the US government, who, ironically, judged this man worthy of death. His punishment fits his crime. Now if the government would only outlaw abortion and prosecute anyone who performs one as a murderer, we could start seeing Justice in America.

    The innocent blood cries for Justice. Judgement is coming.

    • Bobby Mae

      Do you support Mexicans here with their large families?

      • FoJC_Forever

        State your thoughts behind this question, then ask your question.

        • Bobby Mae

          I know your type. Obsessed with the right to life, all lives are valuable.. Yet as a whole you tend to hate how many kids Mexicans have. Lots of racist undertones. All life is valuable no?

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            All life is precious in God’s eyes. I support the sanctity of life from conception until natural death.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            And by the way, you are obsessed with the right to life as well. Yours. If someone were to deny you that right (i.e. take your life) the other rights would be meaningless. There is a hierarchy of rights and that one trumps the rest.

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        Friend, that’s a red herring. We’re not discussing Mexicans here. You can discuss it with me on my blog if you wish. Thank you.

    • weasel1886

      Would the woman getting one also be a murderer ? How about a woman using an IUD ? Is she a murderer also?

    • MisterPine

      Your type has been saying “judgement is coming” for 2000 years.

      • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

        That’s a false syllogism. The statement “something is coming” is not false simply because it hasn’t come yet. You’re more logical than that.

        • MisterPine

          Put it this way, everyone who has ever predicted the end of the world so far has been wrong. I suspect it might have felt a lot more like the “end times” in fact when the Bubonic Plague was going on. No false syllogisms there.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            He didn’t predict “the end of the world.” Strictly speaking, he only said that “judgment” is coming. That’s a pretty fluid term so it essentially renders the sentence meaningless.

          • MisterPine

            I would lay 10 to 1 odds that FoJC is talking about The Rapture.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Maybe, but recall that God judged Israel many times for their idolatry and unfaithfulness to the covenant. There are many who feel that America’s abandonment of Christian values is going to result in calamity befalling us. So when he speaks of a coming judgment it’s not altogether clear what he means. My money would be on a temporal judgment against the US. There were quite a few who felt that 9/11 was brought on by our nation’s immorality. I think that’s absurd and offensive but such is the mind-set of these people.

          • MisterPine

            You will recall that FoJC is the one who says Catholics are not Christians. What I was doing was pointing out how much his kind likes to shake their finger at us and do the fire and brimstone thing. That’s really all I was getting at.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            With you on that. I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek having a conversation about our friend on his own ranting thread. He thinks I’m plotting to get his secret information but I’m really just shooting fish in a barrel. Glad to have your feedback. Like I said before, I prefer people who don’t share my views but who discuss things with me instead of lobbing proof-text bombs at me.

  • Kathryn Evans

    I think you have a misunderstanding of Christianity. The God of the Bible demands the blood of one who intentionally takes the life of an innocent person (murder), because Man was made in God’s image. He’ll have a chance to become saved while he’s on death row.
    He also requires the life of any animal that takes the life of a human.

    • Dave L

      The Old Testament Laws for Capital Punishment applied to Israel in Old Testament times only. Notice the Ten Commandments and Jewish civil law apply to whoever God brought out of Egypt. I. e., Old Testament Israel.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    May he find Jesus and get saved before he gets executed.