Are You Qualified to be the Executioner?

[genuineoriginal]

right, in effect she was found not guilty, or as is used in some british commmonwealth law, not proven

it's a distinction between guilt and innnocence


eta: google indicates that its a Scots term, but I believe I've seen it elsewhere

could be what I'm remembering was archaic usages :idunno:

Modern term is dismissal.
The trial was dismissed due to lack of material witnesses.

 

[drbrumley]

sorry brum - i can't make myself clear on my handheld - those who caught her in the act were satisfied that she was guilty. The Law had stricter requirements to satisfy.

Agreed!

but to get back to the passage:

nkjv john 8:5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”

they weren't asking Him whether she was guilty or innocent,

Agreed!

they were asking Him to contradict the Law of Moses so that they might have something with which to accuse Him

So what could Jesus have said which would make them accuse him? I mean, the sabbath accusation was before this event I think. So He was already on the "accused" list so to speak.

 

[drbrumley]

because i draw a distinction between innocent and not guilty, as determined by law

Which is why I had asked judge for a clarification in which I asked him,

Just to verify, your saying that because witnesses were not provided she was declared innocent? So the process cleared her? So if witnesses did come forward, Jesus would have said she was to be killed? Much appreciated!

So if witnesses did come forward, Jesus would have said she was to be killed? Much appreciated!

 

[ok doser]

Agreed!





Agreed!



So what could Jesus have said which would make them accuse him? I mean, the sabbath accusation was before this event I think. So He was already on the "accused" list so to speak.

That's a good question - what were they hoping for in response? What might they have been led to expect?

 

[ok doser]

Were they expecting Him to contradict Roman law (which contradicted the law of moses)?

 

[genuineoriginal]

So if witnesses did come forward, Jesus would have said she was to be killed? Much appreciated!

Did you miss the part where Jesus told the witnesses to stone her?

 

[drbrumley]

Did you miss the part where Jesus told them to stone her?

:sigh:
I must have

 

[genuineoriginal]

I must have

John 8:7

 

[drbrumley]

John 8:7

Meaning?

 

[drbrumley]

John 8:7

Well my friend, He knew there wasn't a sinless man there so was there a point in that question?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Meaning?

Jesus said (paraphrased) If you are keeping the Law, stone her to death.

 

[drbrumley]

Jesus said (paraphrased) If you are keeping the Law, stone her to death.

Is that a fact?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Is that a fact?

Yes, it is a fact that Jesus told the witnesses to stone the woman caught in adultery.

 

[drbrumley]

Yes, it is a fact that Jesus told the witnesses to stone the woman caught in adultery.

I see....sooooooo, Jesus told them to stone her, as they wanted to do, but then decided against it...makes perfect sense.

You just cant make this stuff up..

 

[genuineoriginal]

I see....sooooooo, Jesus told them to stone her, as they wanted to do, but then decided against it...makes perfect sense.

You just cant make this stuff up..

What makes you think they wanted to stone the woman?
The narrative shows all of them leaving when Jesus turned the trap onto them.

 

[Stripe]

Ok, like what was wrong with the persecution other than they were in occupied Israel under roman authority which didn't allow adulters to be killed?

That's another problem.

The ones from the law that I see are:
A lack of witnesses.
Failure to charge both parties.
Failure to seek a proper judge.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you are not under the law, are you lawless and disobedient?

1 Timothy 1:8-11 8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; 11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.​

There is our civil and criminal legal systems. Those represent the laws by which we govern ourselves. They are generally based on Mosaic law. I follow those laws for any number of reasons.

As far as God's law is concerned, I follow Christ's commandments:
Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)
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.’^{[a] 38} This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^{[b] 40} All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

 

[CabinetMaker]

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?ur...&share_tid=130548&share_fid=4230&share_type=t

If it was a mistake, I recommend you fix his name.

Stipe was his original name on this site.

 

[Stripe]

I follow Christ's commandments... Love the Lord your God.

Except you only pay lip service to the law.

Directly. Watch:

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

You think John 8 unhitches "do not murder" from the law.

Stipe was his original name on this site.

Trust me, you can use whatever name you like. What you will not do is present a sensible defense of what you believe.

You won't even present what you believe clearly.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

I see....sooooooo, Jesus told them to stone her, as they wanted to do....

nothing in the passage indicates that they wanted to stone her.