Sadly, this is pretty much what I expected from you.
Your straw-manning of me is definitely dishonest, and RD called you out on it.
No, it was my claim, and it was also the claim of the site I linked to when I initially stated it, and it was one of Bob Enyart's beliefs, and I imagine one of the premises for the
proposed constitution.
that nobody could judge David under the law
Would you like to try to explain how David could have been held accountable to anyone under the law, when he was the highest authority in the land, apart from God?
logically translates to David not being accountable to the law except of his own free will.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
God, when He gave the law to Moses, LONG before Solon of Athens, gave a requirement for the king to keep a copy of the law with him.
The king was under the law.
What I have not said is that he is not accountable to the law.
What I have said is that there is no one above him (apart from God) who is under the law who could enforce the law against him.
And God did not enforce the Mosaic law against David. But David was still punished.
We see much the same in today's legal system. Styx had a great line in one of their songs, "Justice for money, what more can we say," and that sure seems to ring true. If you have enough money/power/influence you can almost always avoid conviction.
That's because we have a broken system (I refuse to call it a justice system, because it's no longer a justice system, now it's just a system) for punishing criminals. If a judge happens to pass down a just system, it's a random occurrence in a mindless system.
So what good is the law to somebody who cannot be judged by that law?
David, the king, while not accountable to anyone on earth, was held accountable by God, the source of justice.
Man was not made for the law, but the law made for man.
A whole mo(b) came out to bear witness against her and what did Jesus say?
As RD said, the woman caught in adultery is NOT the woman at the well.
You're confusing the two.
The woman at the well was indeed guilty, but she was not under trial for her crimes. No charges had been brought against her.
As for the woman caught in adultery, 1) they didn't bring the man she was committing adultery with, which made them guilty of violating the law (which stated they needed to) and 2) after Jesus was done writing on the ground, there were ZERO witnesses to testify against her. That's why Jesus said "he who is without sin cast the first stone," because NONE of them were without sin, since they had violated the law in not bringing the man she was allegedly committing adultery with. And thus they left, and so she could not have been found guilty of anything, because there were no witnesses left after they did, where TWO or THREE are required to establish guilt.