Was the execution of Jesus unjust?

Originally posted by FMF
Was Jesus executed unjustly?

Something interesting about your question is, we never came to a definitive conclusion as to why Jesus was executed. I think someone said it was because of political discord, but what were the charges? The last time I checked, that was not a charge that one could be executed for, therefrore, other charges must have been introduced. The Bible says it was blasphemy, so under the law at that time if he had blasphemed the punishment would suit the crime under Jewish law, however, I don't think anyone here thinks he blasphemed. You have Christians who would say that he was God in the flesh, therefore, did not blaspheme, then you have others who are not Christian say that he never claimed to be equal with God. They would say that the charges were made up, yet, how hard would it be to refute the allegation of blasphemy? All one would have to say is that I didn't say that, unless, of course, he had false witnesses. So I guess that would be the position of the nonbeliever.

Of course, you question is an explosive one because of the person you singled out. It raises questions about historical accuracies as well as religious beliefs that we all have preconceived notions about coming into this discussion. To simplify things a bit, perhaps you could ask the question as to whether the two theives who died next to Jesus got what they deserved. Of course, you would assume that they were charged correctly for their crimes. They would have been executed rightly under the law, but was the law just?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have asked others before how that works and I still don't understand the explanation (though some have tried to explain it to me).
How does one pay the penalty for another's crime, and is that just? What does it achieve?
Is there some heavenly tally of sins for which a penalty must be paid by someone? Why?

Let me try my hand at an explanation...

The "fall of man" is not so much a crime as it is a state of being. The spirit of man was separated from God because of a disobedient act long ago (time out of mind). We have inherited a sinful nature from our ancestors which manifests itself as a propensity for rebellion against God's rightful authority over our lives. He, the Creator; we, His creatures.

Consequently, the entire human race carries an innate aversion to submitting to God's will. That is, we naturally see God's will as constrictive and unappealing in every way and generally loathe the idea of having our lives governed by God. Ironically, though, God's will is always our highest good. As a natural consequence of rebellion against the highest good, we procure a destiny without it.

The natural man is truly in a pitiable state, no matter how accomplished he may be, because he is incapable of securing for himself the highest good (not only in this life, but in the life to come).

This is where God's mercy and grace come into play. Humanity has no hope of saving itself from the natural consequences of rebellion, therefore God had to send His Son, Jesus Christ, to bear all the consequences of rebellion for the entire human race -- for all people, in order to be able to proclaim that WHOSOEVER believes in Jesus Christ has forgiveness, perfect and permanent reconciliation with God, and inherits an undeserved HIGHEST GOOD (i.e., eternal life in heaven).

This is done first and foremost for the Lord's sake, to satisfy His immutable righteousness, and can be considered a legally binding clemency in that sense.

Though reconciliation also simultaneously involves the resurrection of the believer's spirit and its reuniting with God's Holy Spirit (often called being born again). This restores the Creator-creature relationship which was marred by rebellion and allows an individual to discern the will of God in spirit and thereby walk in obedience, causing him or her to be able to enjoy all the blessings and benefits of doing so (which include all those promises in the Bible meant for the children of Israel, i.e., protection, provision, victory, peace, joy, plenty, fellowship with God, etc.).

And after the body dies, God has further promised those who believe in His Son, that they will share in His resurrection, too. This is the significance of Jesus Christ's resurrection, that He has overcome death; not only spiritual death, but physical death as a life principle, in place since the Fall. Those who believe in Jesus Christ and have been already resurrected in spirit will be given new glorified bodies in heaven, in the same way Jesus has after His death and resurrection.

This is the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, but He also set a pattern of submission which anyone who believes in and follows Him learns to grow into as a child of God.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Is it just for God to kill? Is it just for God to send unrepentant sinners to eternal damnation?

No to the first question. Yes to the second.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Well, I'm a lawyer, and a law enforcement official in a Federal regulatory agency, at that. If I don't have a well-formed idea of justice by now, some folks had better be concerned.

I follow Toullier's concept and use the word justice as that which considered positively and in itself, is called virtue, but when considered relatively and with respect to ...[text shortened]... because in my country each man is worth two women. They are not the same," she said.>>

I follow Toullier's concept and use the word justice as that which considered positively and in itself, is called virtue, but when considered relatively and with respect to others, has the name of justice.

If justice, considered in itself, is a virtue, then I would likely put that within a scheme of virtue ethics, in which eudaimonia (flourishing/well-being/happiness—to live a flourishing life) is the final good. Virtuous behavior is that which supports eudaimonia, and a virtuous person is one whose disposition is toward such behavior.

I would not call justice “virtue”, but “a virtue”.

Considered relatively, I am wondering if the result is basically utilitarian—in the sense of “the greatest eudaimonia for the greatest number”. Still thinking about it…


Justice, in practice, to me, means doing what is fair, morally right.

Well, that word “fair” is in as need of definition as is “just”. Using what you say below this, I might try: “ ‘Fair’ describes a situation in which anyone/everyone receives her due from anyone/everyone else [in the ideal].”

I would also say that “fairness” entails not unnecessarily limiting or restricting anyone’s pursuit of eudemonia. I’ll try to think how to better put that…

To do these things, justice, to be effective, exists within a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.

Okay. I think there also has to be a condition that that system of law be clearly articulated, such that [again, in the ideal] ‘any rational and reflective person’ will recognize the virtue/fairness/justness of the laws.

Anyway, that’s how far I’ve got. It’s going to take a lot more reflection…

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
I believe what is or is not “unjust” is so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.

But, I think it is politically stupid for some rulers to make a martyr out of a person that DOES preach violence let alone somebody who preaches non-violence! I think that was really stupid as WELL as brutal.
============ ...[text shortened]... your own philosophy, that this opinion of yours is so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.

….But you must agree, according to your own philosophy, that this opinion of yours is so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.
..…[/b]

not quite -I didn’t say that an opinion on either what is “politically stupid” or what is “brutal” is “so subjective as to be virtually meaningless” but rather what is “unjust” is “so subjective as to be virtually meaningless” although, I admit, that is just as the result of the way I personally tend to define the word “brutal” and, ultimately, there is no purely objectively “correct” way of defining a word.

Originally posted by vistesd
[bIf justice, considered in itself, is a virtue, then I would likely put that within a scheme of virtue ethics, in which eudaimonia (flourishing/well-being/happiness—to live a flourishing life) is the final good. Virtuous behavior is that which supports eudaimonia, and a virtuous person is one whose disposition is toward such behavior.[/b]

Well, I wouldn't put virtue within a scheme of virtue ethics where eudaimonia is the final good.

Virtuous behavior I would submit is intentionally doing the right thing.

the right thing is defined both in one's cultural matrix as that which is morally right, and as that which is defined in law as right.

Of course, any such system of laws must, I suggest, rest upon the consent of those subject to it. This is not to say everyone is free to obey or not to obey laws that apply within the jurisdiction within which they reside. The consent is not situational, but rather the same as described, for example, in the US Constitution and similar documents around the world. Laws, to be valid, depend on legitimacy, which is a form of consensus. In fact, everything, including reality itself rests upon the same idea, linguistically and in just about any other fashion one can suggest.

No appeal to authority, such as an appeal to a sovereign or to a religious symbol or deity will do here -- as these are false authorities or no authority at all.

Another word to explore is Equity -- what is it to be equitable? Well, you asked what is it to be fair -- I answer, it is to be equitable. There is a well developed jurisprudence on what is just at law and also a well developed jurisprudence on what is fair at equity.

We don't actually have to reinvent the wheel, you know.

Originally posted by whodey
So the message is if someone murders your loved one offer them your other family member? Come on man, that is not what is beng said here.

I didn't say that either. That part of the post was in response to the following assertion of yours which was false. Jesus did not "merely offer a different alternative." He made it clear that "an eye for an eye" was not truly the law and there's no mistaking that He meant it.

"If I recall he did not condemn the Mosaic law, rather, he merely offerred a different alternative which no one dare contest at the time."

Maybe if you actually thought about what is written instead of just reacting to it, you could post something meaningful.

Originally posted by whodey
My point is, we are both in favor of "punishment". So does punishment equate grace and mercy like the mercy shown the woman caught in adultery? I could turn to you and say, if you don't show them mercy and let them go like the woman caught in adultery you are not a follower of Jesus. Of course, I think we both agree that is not the message being shown here ...[text shortened]... le who were whipped by Jesus would say regarding his tendency towards capital punishment? 😛

Once again, maybe if you actually thought about what is written instead of just reacting to it, you could post something meaningful.

For one, I never said that I was "in favor of "punishment" did I? How about giving an honest answer to that?

You keep making some of the most illogical inferences and conclusions with both my posts and the teachings of Jesus. Try re-reading the Sermon on the Mount. From what you've posted here, it's obvious that you understand what Jesus was saying about as well as you understand what I've been posting - which is not at all. Jesus clearly speaks against "an eye for an eye". Jesus clearly speaks against "the law" as understood and kept by the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus was saying that they didn't know what THE LAW really is. Who do you think was maintaining what we now think of as the Mosaic Law?

Originally posted by FMF
I know. But there's no Jesus figure. Muslims most certainly do not worship Muhammed.

[b]Are you suggesting that the Qu'ran doesn't have some wild 'imaginary' tales among its Suras.

No I'm not.

Most meaningless death?... 180 degree opposite...it was the most important event ever.

I just don't buy into it.

The explanations I hear - like f ...[text shortened]... you dissect it, looking for it's so-called "meaning" - just kind of disappears.[/b]

Well, in that case I cannot convince you otherwise, so I will just have to respect your decision to reject Christ. We have free wil.

Originally posted by black beetle
Nobody can save you dystoniac, this idea is false. You have tied down yourself on your own, and you have the full responsibility for this outcome, so how can you be saved? In fact, you want to keep up living tied down. So why should someone save you?
😵

Nobody can save me, save Jesus, and since I am already saved, I am already free and can never be tied down.

Originally posted by Scriabin
Well, I wouldn't put virtue within a scheme of virtue ethics where eudaimonia is the final good.

Virtuous behavior I would submit is intentionally doing the right thing.

the right thing is defined both in one's cultural matrix as that which is morally right, and as that which is defined in law as right.

Of course, any such system of laws must, I su ...[text shortened]... dence on what is fair at equity.

We don't actually have to reinvent the wheel, you know.

No appeal to authority, such as an appeal to a sovereign or to a religious symbol or deity will do here -- as these are false authorities or no authority at all.

Agreed.

Since one needs some contextual matrix within which to define the concept “justice”, then any definition is going to be relative to such a matrix. Since “justice” is an ethical concept, I am attempting to site it within a specific ethical theory (Aristotelean virtue ethics, as opposed to, say some Kantian deontology—hardly reinventing the wheel).

The question is, what are the philosophical underpinnings of a given culturally defined system of justice? Or, what are the philosophical underpinnings of any “well developed jusrisprudence”?

Someone makes a claim for a putative deity: that that deity is “just”. You are familiar, not only with the developed jurisprudence (and equity law), but also with the underlying philosophy behind that. So you will approach the question from that perspective. I do not have that body of knowledge, and while I am willing to learn from you in that regard, I am therefore, in the meantime, approaching the question from a perspective that I do have some (by no means expert) familiarity with.

From that philosophical perspective. I might begin by asking the broader question: “Can the described deity be considered virtuous?” For example, from the point of view of virtue ethics, what kind of existential conditions would a virtuous creator god provide for his/her/its creatures? How would such a god treat such creatures, including creatures with reflective and self-reflective consciousness?” Since justice/fairness/equity is an ethical virtue, it fits within that questioning.

I don’t see justice—yes, I think your word “equity” is helpful—as a virtue-in-itself, as an end unto itself. I ask the question “to what end?” I would propose: having a society in which each individual’s ability to live a eudaimonic life, without such ability being unnecessarily circumscribed by other individuals or the governing body. Under such a proposal, for example, I think your point about consent of the subjects is right on.

The question was asked: “Was Jesus’ execution just?” Epi introduced the notion that it might be just from a divine perspective, whether we would consider it so from a human perspective or not.

I am not a theist; most of my arguments with various theists take the form of challenging claims that they make for their (concept of) God. To that end, I have asked how theists understand that word “just” when they apply it to their God. Since you raised the question, however, I am taking that burden on myself, as part of my own philosophical perspective. (I’m probably going to have to go back to the Nichomachean Ethics.)

Could you expand on the notion of “equitable treatment” some more? At least I would find it helpful.

Originally posted by dystoniac
I will just have to respect your decision to reject Christ.

Actually I was rejecting the importance placed by some humans on his death.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Once again, maybe if you actually thought about what is written instead of just reacting to it, you could post something meaningful.

For one, I never said that I was "in favor of "punishment" did I? How about giving an honest answer to that?

You keep making some of the most illogical inferences and conclusions with both my posts and the teachings o W really is. Who do you think was maintaining what we now think of as the Mosaic Law?

I would agree that they ignored the spirit of the law. Case in point is when they accused him of breaking the Sabbath by healing on that holy day. However, what I think you are saying here is that God NEVER intended for the Jewish people to take an eye for an eye when violations of the law were substantiated. If so, the only possibilites I can think of are that the teaching of "an eye for an eye" was either mistranslated or it was a man made doctrine. Is this correct?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]No appeal to authority, such as an appeal to a sovereign or to a religious symbol or deity will do here -- as these are false authorities or no authority at all.

Agreed.

Since one needs some contextual matrix within which to define the concept “justice”, then any definition is going to be relative to such a matrix. Since “justice” is an ethical ...[text shortened]... you expand on the notion of “equitable treatment” some more? At least I would find it helpful.[/b]

The law of equity and the Court Of Chancery grew out of the Norman Kings’ Council as did the common law. Under the Normans the chancellor was the most powerful executive officer of the king and the chief law member of the King’s Council. He not only issued writs which permitted an aggrieved person to bring an action in a common-law court, but he himself, as a personal representative of the king, heard pleas which the common-law courts were unable to handle. Procedure, too, at least in the early period, was more flexible in chancery. So a separate body of law, equity, with a separate court, the Court of Chancery, gradually developed.

Equity had precedence over the common law because its degrees applied to the person of the defendant and disobedience to a decree was a contempt of court.

The remedies in equity were also more flexible.

!!!!! While a judgment of a law court was limited to money damages or recovery of property, courts of equity, for example, would grant an injunction (a decree forbidding the defendant to do some act, even a prohibition against pursuing a cause of action in a common-law court), specific performance (ordering the defendant to perform his contract), reformation (rewriting a contact or instrument to conform to the actual intent of the parties), or partition (to divide disputed property).

It might be said that the common-law court emphasized form, while the chancery courts were more interested in the merits of the case and the justice of the decision. Another distinction was that juries were not used in equity.

Although some states still have separate courts of chancery, in most of the states the same judges sit, often at separate periods, both as law judges and chancellors. In most states and in the federal courts the distinction between law and equity has been all but eliminated.

Originally posted by whodey
I would agree that they ignored the spirit of the law. Case in point is when they accused him of breaking the Sabbath by healing on that holy day. However, what I think you are saying here is that God NEVER intended for the Jewish people to take an eye for an eye when violations of the law were substantiated. If so, the only possibilites I can think of are ...[text shortened]... "an eye for an eye" was either mistranslated or it was a man made doctrine. Is this correct?

My poor, deluded fellow -- you fail to realize that ALL doctrines are man made.

There is only one thing that can be conceded not to be so -- ALL that comprises the physical universe and all matter and energy in it.

None of that is man made. We just move it around or observe it.

As for the product of these electrical fields we carry around in our skulls, everything we can describe using our ability to transcribe the product of those fields into language is man made.

If you will, however we came to exist, we've come equipped with what we call free will -- we can make choices about what we think, say and do.

Your problem is this idea terrifies you -- so you don't want to take on the responsibility that comes with such freedom.

You can't get to where you want to be from here.

Sorry