:chuckle:
ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
:chuckle:
:chuckle:
He offers NO proof. I wonder why? Oh, I think we know.
People make up a lot of baloney, however, it's all talk and no real proof. That guy in the video is telling what they call, "A TALL Tale." He has quite an imagination. I challenge this guy to dig up somebody whose been dead for forty years or more and videotape the results. I somehow don't think he'll take the challenge.
Well, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on here, as well? Day and night. Why is that? Unemployed, disabled, mentally incompetent, bi-polar, lazy, or a recluse perhaps?
Did you laugh as much at the "videos front?"
Agreed.
Now that's a decent answer. It's about time.
:hammer:
How stupid can you be? Not once have I tried to negate the accusation, You really are a moron.
For anyone who isn't devoid of a brain like andy here, the Law is relevant because the Pharisees were breaking it. They were breaking both of these laws and andy doesn't get that. He doesn't know how they were breaking the laws here.
It's also relevant because it explains part of the reason the punishment could not be carried out even if the witnesses had not left. Do any of you anti-MAD people know why? andy doesn't.
Jesus was not a witness to her crime. andy has admitted that much. He was also not a judge or a priest according to their knowledge. So by His own commandments He could not condemn her of His own accord.These are all reasons Jesus didn't condemn her even after they were gone, though she had broken the Law, which is very relevant t the issue at hand. andy wants to argue that Jesus didn't teach the Law and uses this case as evidence when Jesus was the only one who didn't violate or ignore the Law in this incident.
The Law was upheld, because the woman was the only one brought forward, the witnesses did not go to the place appointed in front of a judge and a priest, and the witnesses left without testifying. And andy thinks I'm trying to negate the accusation when I already admitted she was guilty weeks ago.
I'm not the blind one here.
I've just explained why you're wrong, above. As a minister the Law He could not condemn her. Not according to the Law.
How does it make no sense as one of the possibilities for what He wrote in the sand?
Example of what? Your ignorance of the Law? You've done enough of that for all to see.
Very much so. Doesn't mean it isn't interesting to discuss.
I didn't say they were guilty of adultery with her.:AMR:
They were, however, guilty of breaking the laws on how to go about punishing adultery.
No we don't. None of us know what He wrote in the sand.
This is not something with which I need help.
He ministered both in conjunction. They are not mutually exclusive, oh daft one.
The only blind one here is you as you can't see how it's even possible for grace and law to work together.
You have yet to engage in a similar thread; one that was started because you wouldn't answer a question in this thread.
OK, where?
See, that's the problem with you. You make claims but never provide the passages to support them.
Acts 9:36-42 & Acts 20:9-12
Is it really so hard to do that?
Now watch this: I, Lighthouse, stand corrected.
Now explain why it never happened again after that.
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
Look at him. Demands straight answers to his idiocy, gets straight answers more than once, then ignores them. Troll is as troll does.
andyc
New member
Right let's spend a bit more time with these twits.
It didn't need answering, as it was too obvious to most.
:hammer:
Well just tell me where Jesus points out their breaking of the law?
He doesn't because they weren't.
As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, judicial judgement was never intended. Now because you just can't grasp this, even though I keep saying it over and over, let's go back to the passage.
Now, Lighthouse, forget protecting mad for a moment, and just think about scripture....
the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?"
Do you see this? "But what do you say"
This was theological entrapment, not a trial. Will you finally get this into your thick head?
No breaking of the law happening here, because it wan't an official trial.
This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him.
Do you understand this?
It was a test. Now, sherlock, if Jesus would have agreed with Moses and the pharisees, it wouldn't have been a test, would it?
So what exactly was the test here? Why were the pharisees testing Jesus?
Every Christian denomination will tell you that the reason was because Jesus came to offer grace to sinners, not judgement.
Because this conflicts with your trashy mad theology, you have to invent nonsense in order to avoid the obvious.
If Jesus didn't condemn the woman, he was in conflict with Moses, but seeing as he was the minister of the new covenant of grace, and the pharisees didn't believe in him, he needed wisdom to tackle the situation.
Lighthouse here doesn't want to accept that the woman was a theological prop used for nothing other than theological debate. That's it!
The pharisees could have simply invented the situation in order to get his opinion on the matter, but to use a real person makes the situation personal. Would Jesus be disgusted with an adulteress woman, or would he extend grace to her?
If he was merciful, he was against Moses, according to the pharisees.
Not mentioned in scripture, because it was not a real trial, and was never meant to be.
Rome did not allow Jews to condemn anyone to death.
That's funny!
Covered above.
Why do you see this as relevant?
John doesn't.
Of course it would be.
If an adulteress deserved to die under the law, that person realizes the need for grace. Yes?
The person who has an adulteress heart, but isn't condemned for the act they haven't committed, and doesn't have a need of grace, is blind.
John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.
Yeah you're not the only one who says that grace and law can work together, but no one has given an example of it. You know why?
Because grace works by faith, and law works by works (Rom 11:6).
I don't want to change the thread topic to satisfy your curiosity. Start a relevant thread, dopey!
What in the world?
I told you that Peter and Paul did it once, as far as we know from scripture, and you want verses?
Then you show the verses telling everyone what I said in the first place?
:chuckle: Nutcase!
We don't know how many times the dead were raised in apostolic times, and after.
It didn't need answering, as it was too obvious to most.
:hammer:
Well just tell me where Jesus points out their breaking of the law?
He doesn't because they weren't.
As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, judicial judgement was never intended. Now because you just can't grasp this, even though I keep saying it over and over, let's go back to the passage.
Now, Lighthouse, forget protecting mad for a moment, and just think about scripture....
the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?"
Do you see this? "But what do you say"
This was theological entrapment, not a trial. Will you finally get this into your thick head?
No breaking of the law happening here, because it wan't an official trial.
This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him.
Do you understand this?
It was a test. Now, sherlock, if Jesus would have agreed with Moses and the pharisees, it wouldn't have been a test, would it?
So what exactly was the test here? Why were the pharisees testing Jesus?
Every Christian denomination will tell you that the reason was because Jesus came to offer grace to sinners, not judgement.
Because this conflicts with your trashy mad theology, you have to invent nonsense in order to avoid the obvious.
If Jesus didn't condemn the woman, he was in conflict with Moses, but seeing as he was the minister of the new covenant of grace, and the pharisees didn't believe in him, he needed wisdom to tackle the situation.
Lighthouse here doesn't want to accept that the woman was a theological prop used for nothing other than theological debate. That's it!
The pharisees could have simply invented the situation in order to get his opinion on the matter, but to use a real person makes the situation personal. Would Jesus be disgusted with an adulteress woman, or would he extend grace to her?
If he was merciful, he was against Moses, according to the pharisees.
Not mentioned in scripture, because it was not a real trial, and was never meant to be.
Rome did not allow Jews to condemn anyone to death.
That's funny!
Covered above.
Why do you see this as relevant?
John doesn't.
Of course it would be.
If an adulteress deserved to die under the law, that person realizes the need for grace. Yes?
The person who has an adulteress heart, but isn't condemned for the act they haven't committed, and doesn't have a need of grace, is blind.
John 9:41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains.
Yeah you're not the only one who says that grace and law can work together, but no one has given an example of it. You know why?
Because grace works by faith, and law works by works (Rom 11:6).
I don't want to change the thread topic to satisfy your curiosity. Start a relevant thread, dopey!
What in the world?
I told you that Peter and Paul did it once, as far as we know from scripture, and you want verses?
Then you show the verses telling everyone what I said in the first place?
:chuckle: Nutcase!
We don't know how many times the dead were raised in apostolic times, and after.
andyc
New member
Mustyboy can't respond, so goes on the offensive LOL
:doh:
Apparently it is only when something is too obvious to ignore you stop playing stupid.
[Jesus]“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”[/Jesus]
-John 8:7b
Also you don't know what He wrote on the ground. And you clearly don't know the law if you think they weren't breaking it.
- They didn't bring the man.
- Jesus was not a recognized authority, such as a judge or priest for them to bring the accused to.
- The place they brought her was not the place appointed.
If you want to make an argument that they weren't technically breaking the law at least admit they weren't following it.
I know full well what they intended. But that's not my point here. My point is that Jesus followed the Law. And that's the thing you can't grasp.
I have considered Scripture, which is why I believe MAD. I haven't always; I used to be a covenant theologian and a charismatic evangelical.
They weren't following the Law if they were bringing the woman to Jesus to ask Him His opinion. And the fact that they did not hold an official trial is the primary factor in the fact that they weren't following the Law.
When two people were caught in adultery what were the witnesses to do? Do you know?
You are just too stupid to hold an intelligent conversation.
They were testing Him because either of the expected answers would have gotten Jesus in trouble with either the Jews to whom He was preaching or the Romans and He would have been at the very least jailed. Either way the group He was trying to reach would have stopped hearing His message.
He came to offer both, because grace means absolutely nothing if there is not first judgment.
Jesus did not witness the adultery. Those who did did not follow the protocol of the Law, and they all left before they could even testify if they had followed protocol. If Jesus had condemned her in that moment He would have been in conflict with Moses. It was by not being in conflict with the very Law He, himself, gave that He did not condemn her. But since you are completely ignorant of the Law you wouldn't know that if it knocked you over the head with a 2x4.
Not only have I already explained to you that I know she was, but I have known since the first time I heard this story.
You've already said He was against Moses, so apparently you agree with the Pharisees. I know that's what they thought.
It wasn't mentioned because her accusers already knew the Law, unlike you.
I know. That's why an answer of, "Yes," would have gotten Jesus in trouble with Rome.
Keep laughing, as you feel your way around.
Spectacular failure.
It was relevant enough to mention that He wrote on the ground.
Basically. One can only realize the need for grace and forgiveness if they know they're guilty. And they can only know that if they are judged and condemned.
Grace means nothing without the Law first. One can only know they are a sinner by the Law. And they must know they are a sinner before grace means anything to them.
I'm not asking you to change anything. I'm saying that you won't answer the question in another thread either.
As for changing the subject, this is a conversation; it needs to be fluid or it won't go anywhere. If you think I'm wrong just take a look at the circle we've been going in from the beginning.
No, idiot. I showed the verses because you wouldn't. You never do. You never support your statements.
Don't you think that would have been important if it were happening?
Exactly.
:chuckle:
andyc
New member
Ok, concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery, the mads are basically standing by an assumption that the woman couldn't be condemned to death because the judicial aspect of the law wan't observed when the accusers presented the case to Jesus.
Lighthouse admits that the accusers never really intended to have the woman killed, and even agrees that the entrapment was theological, but then assumes that Jesus could have been arrested by the Romans for agreeing with the judgement prescribed in the law.
The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't present a test for Jesus. He would not have been arrested for agreeing with the law, he'd only be arrested for carrying out the law. The Jews told the Romans that Jesus should be condemned under the law for blasphemy, but they asked Rome to do it.
Adultery is a moral law, and is one of the ten commandments. The breaking of that commandment triggers the judicial law of punishment. If it is intended to carry out such punishment, the the trial would have to be lawful. Lighthouse understands and agrees with this, and he also agrees that the accusers never intended to have the woman put to death, And so, the judicial law is irrelevant in this situation, isn't it?
Another interesting point is that Lighthouse is obviously of the opinion that Jesus wrote something in the sand concerning the sins of the accusers. The KJV only mads wouldn't agree with this, however, because the KJV explains that he stooped down and wrote on the ground, as though he hadn't heard them. And so what they said, he ignored initially. This would explain why John didn't mention what Jesus wrote in the sand, because it had nothing to do with the situation.
So what is the test? Well it's obvious.
The pharisees accused Jesus of being a friend of tax collectors and sinners. Where the law condemns, Jesus offered forgiveness, like in Luke 7. Mads hate this because they want Jesus to be a ruthless law enforcer. Under the law, repentance didn't remove condemnation, but Jesus does.
Matthew 21:31 "Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you.
Every commentary and study bible will explain that part of the trap was to see if Jesus would extend mercy to the woman, and in so doing would be seen by them as overruling the Mosaic law. Then they would have reason to expose him as a fraud, without understanding that he was the minister of the new covenant of grace.
Lighthouse admits that the accusers never really intended to have the woman killed, and even agrees that the entrapment was theological, but then assumes that Jesus could have been arrested by the Romans for agreeing with the judgement prescribed in the law.
The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn't present a test for Jesus. He would not have been arrested for agreeing with the law, he'd only be arrested for carrying out the law. The Jews told the Romans that Jesus should be condemned under the law for blasphemy, but they asked Rome to do it.
Adultery is a moral law, and is one of the ten commandments. The breaking of that commandment triggers the judicial law of punishment. If it is intended to carry out such punishment, the the trial would have to be lawful. Lighthouse understands and agrees with this, and he also agrees that the accusers never intended to have the woman put to death, And so, the judicial law is irrelevant in this situation, isn't it?
Another interesting point is that Lighthouse is obviously of the opinion that Jesus wrote something in the sand concerning the sins of the accusers. The KJV only mads wouldn't agree with this, however, because the KJV explains that he stooped down and wrote on the ground, as though he hadn't heard them. And so what they said, he ignored initially. This would explain why John didn't mention what Jesus wrote in the sand, because it had nothing to do with the situation.
So what is the test? Well it's obvious.
The pharisees accused Jesus of being a friend of tax collectors and sinners. Where the law condemns, Jesus offered forgiveness, like in Luke 7. Mads hate this because they want Jesus to be a ruthless law enforcer. Under the law, repentance didn't remove condemnation, but Jesus does.
Matthew 21:31 "Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you.
Every commentary and study bible will explain that part of the trap was to see if Jesus would extend mercy to the woman, and in so doing would be seen by them as overruling the Mosaic law. Then they would have reason to expose him as a fraud, without understanding that he was the minister of the new covenant of grace.
Even if they had intended to carry out the execution they would have been breaking the Law by not following it as it was written. And I assume nothing; if Jesus had advocated executing the woman as the Law commanded the Pharisees would have reported Him to the Roman authorities for advocating usurping their rule.
What do you think would have happened if Jesus had said she should be stoned?
You've obviously never studied history and the rule of tyrants.
No. Because it speaks to why Jesus didn't condemn her when the witnesses were gone. He knew she was guilty and yet did not condemn her. Do you know why He would do that if He were following the Law?
I only said it was a possibility. It is not my opinion.
When have any of us ever said Jesus was a ruthless law enforcer? When have we ever said He enforced the Law? Your head is up your backside.
andyc
New member
What?
The question was whether Jesus agreed with the Mosaic law or not. Nothing more.
He did.
He who is without sin, cast the first stone. If they were going to insist on carrying out the law, they could do so if their conscience was clear regarding their own sin.
ROFLOL!
Tyrants are your specialty?
You crack me up!
Because he was offering her a chance to repent!
This is what I'm trying to open yours eyes to!
So it's irrelevant!
:chuckle:
All of a sudden we have a mad Jesus who's now not enforcing the Mosaic law.
Then you don't know how to have a conversation, or to think critically.
You're an idiot.
Jesus, knowing they were not innocent, did not intend to imply the woman should be stoned. My question is regarding the idea that He did. What if He did? What if He came right out and just said she should be stoned without any loopholes, etc.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”
-John 8:1-5
What if the next line had been Jesus saying, "She should be stoned, as well as the adulterer"? What would have happened?
You really are a special kind of stupid.
I know this you idiot. That's not the question. You claim He was doing this in opposition to the Law. I'm asking you what His reason for doing so would be if He were following the Law, apart from grace and mercy.
You say He could not do this in accordance with the Law, I'm saying He could and did. Do you know why I say that? Do you know why I disagree with you? Do you know why Jesus, specifically, could not condemn her in accordance with the Law?
We already established that, dunce.
MAD doesn't say He enforced it. He followed it. He was in no position to enforce it, as He was not in a position of recognized authority for such.
Well, after His ascension He did some enforcing. Why do you think Ananias and Sapphira died?
Do you not know the meaning of the word "enforce"?
andyc
New member
Er no, you are not even following anything being said. You're just saying anything, regardless of whether it's relevant or not.
Well I think you're dickhead, so what?
Innocent of what?
Scripture doesn't say. They brought a woman to him caught in the act of adultery, and used the situation to test him. The test was to see if he would agree with the Mosaic law or not.
So far all we've had from you is what you *think* happened, and why you *think* it happened, and why you *think* the whole test was invalid.
Then simply it would mean that her condemnation was deserved from a legal / moral perspective, which is all the pharisees were wanting to know in the first place, nothing more. Agreeing with the mosaic law would not get people in trouble with Rome.
The accusers would have been happy about Jesus agreeing with Moses, but would have also been confused because he taught that harlots were entering the kingdom of God ahead of them. They knew that Jesus would want to give the woman opportunity to repent, which he did by the way, and by doing so would have been at odds with Moses.
No that's you. Continually.
There is no atonement for adultery under the law, so stop beating around the bush and show where there is grace and mercy under the law. You constantly keep blabbing nonsense.
So you enjoy wasting everyone's time.
Let's quickly clear up the fact that it was not the law condemning Ananias and Saphira. So this is irrelevant.
Jesus upheld the integrity of the law in order to make people realize how much they needed him. When we're talking about him enforcing the law, we're talking about him supporting the judicial aspect of the law.
If Jesus agreed with Moses concerning the law's prescribed punishment for sin, would he have expected the Jewish leaders to carry it out?
If God said, "put adulterers to death", would Jesus have expected the Israel's leaders to see it done?