The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Arthur Brain]

John 8:3-6 3 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. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.​

The scribes and Pharisees were attempting to trap Jesus according to His knowledge of what was written in the Law.
This is very important to remember.

Were the scribes and Pharisees correct in what they said was commanded in the Law?

Leviticus 20:10 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.​

No, Moses in the Law commanded that the man that commits adultery would be put to death and the woman that commits adultery was to be put to death with the man, not by herself.

What else did Moses command in the Law about putting someone to death?
Here are a couple of the commandments and the response Jesus made that relates to them.

Deuteronomy 17:7 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 19:16-19 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.​

John 8:7 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.​

By stating "he that is without sin", Jesus is referring to the provision in the Law against a false witness.
By stating "let him first cast a stone", Jesus is referring to the law that states that hands of the witnesses are to be first to put someone to death.
What was the response by the witnesses?

John 8:9 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.​

Leaving is the response expected of false witnesses.

Lets go back to the original challenge.
The scribes and Pharisees specifically mentioned that the law states that an adulteress was to be stoned.
The verse states that the adulteress was to be put to death but does not actually mention that it was to be done by stoning.
Where is the verse that states that the woman that commits adultery is to be stoned?

Deuteronomy 22:23-27 23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.​

Wait a minute.
Was the woman taken in adultery married or merely bethrothed?
Was she taken in the city or in the field?
Did she cry out and no one saved her?
Did the woman do no sin that was worthy of death?
We don't know, but this shows that the Law commands that a man should be put to death for committing adultery while the woman can go free, if the circumstances warrant it.

There is more in the Law about putting someone to death.

Deuteronomy 17:6 6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.​

John 8:10-11 10 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.​

There were no witnesses to testify against the woman.
How could she be put to death according to the Law without any witnesses?

The most significant point in the story is that the witnesses left without being the first to throw stones.
Since Jesus was not one of the witnesses, He would have to wait until the witnesses threw the first stones before He could do anything, otherwise He would be in violation of the Law, and it didn't matter whether He knew she was guilty or innocent.
If Jesus knew the woman was guilty, He would still be only one witness, and the Law commanded that nobody was to be put to death with only one witnesses.

Did you forget that the challenge was about what Moses commanded in the Law?

So what was Jesus writing on the ground that made the crowd gradually shuffle off or is that of no importance?

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

We want to protect an innocent and execute the guilty.
You are totally unhinged if you want to slay the innocent and let the guilty live.

How many more times are you going to spout this silly soundbite?

:AMR:

 

[genuineoriginal]

So what was Jesus writing on the ground that made the crowd gradually shuffle off or is that of no importance?

lain:

We are not told what He wrote on the ground.

John 8:6-8 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. ​

Jesus wrote something, stopped, then wrote something else.

There is a story that during a trial the priest is required to bend down and write the crime along with the names of the persons accused in the unswept dirt on the floor of the Temple.
If this story is true, then Jesus would have been writing the relevant verses from the Law in the ground before He stopped writing, and then He would have been writing the names of the scribes and Pharisees in the ground after saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" for violating the Law.

That explanation is as good as any other.

 

[Arthur Brain]

We are not told what He wrote on the ground.

John 8:6-8 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. ​

Jesus wrote something, stopped, then wrote something else.

There is a story that during a trial the priest is required to bend down and write the crime along with the names of the persons accused in the unswept dirt on the floor of the Temple.
If this story is true, then Jesus would have been writing the relevant verses from the Law in the ground before He stopped writing, and then He would have been writing the names of the scribes and Pharisees in the ground after saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" for violating the Law.

That explanation is as good as any other.

No, you're not told which should give you pause for thought. You're one of the people who would gladly have the woman in the passage executed as you support the DP for adultery. It's always ironic when people like you try to downplay the incident as Jesus simply avoiding a legal trap when you effectively act like one of the mob but simply not allowed to throw a stone.

 

[Stripe]

Jesus would have been writing the relevant verses from the Law.

And key to that would be that those who knew the law departed because they recognized the case was not complete.

It makes more sense than believing they left because of "whoever is without sin."

That explanation is as good as any other.

For me, it was a key to profound understanding.

Jesus was speaking to a number of groups and dealt with all of them masterfully.

The law to the legalists. The spirit of the law to the commonfolk, and wisdom to those willing to hear.

And as a corollary, nonsense to those determined to reject His law.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

The scribes and Pharisees were attempting to trap Jesus according to His knowledge of what was written in the Law.
This is very important to remember.

I didn't forget it. I also understand the failures of the trap. Just as I understand Christ could have set that out and rebuked the effort and instructed them in justice. Because the woman was guilty and her death would have served the spirit of the law, which was justice.

I'm not and have not been confused by what the instigators of the encounter were attempting. I've spoken directly to it prior, as well as noting that reading the response of Jesus as that of a man escaping a trap is to require of him the sort of conduct we'd condemn in a lawyer and decry as unjust. In fact, it's a routine illustration of a corrupt system by many who want to object to it, that lawyers get the guilty off on technicalities.

John 8:7
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.​

[/BOX]
By stating "he that is without sin", Jesus is referring to the provision in the Law against a false witness.

No, he isn't. He's setting a standard they couldn't meet. There was no requirement that an executioner be sinless, only that the accusers (the two or more) would be the first to stone the condemned. That much we agree on.

Leaving is the response expected of false witnesses.

Or those who couldn't meet his requirement.

Lets go back to the original challenge.
The scribes and Pharisees specifically mentioned that the law states that an adulteress was to be stoned.
The verse states that the adulteress was to be put to death but does not actually mention that it was to be done by stoning.
Where is the verse that states that the woman that commits adultery is to be stoned?

Wait, are you going to suggest that the people who had noted Jesus' wisdom in relation to the law, would as a trap attempt something anyone with a modest understanding of Mosaic punishment would understand as errant?

Wait a minute.
Was the woman taken in adultery married or merely bethrothed?
Was she taken in the city or in the field?
Did she cry out and no one saved her?
Did the woman do no sin that was worthy of death?
We don't know, but this shows that the Law commands that a man should be put to death for committing adultery while the woman can go free, if the circumstances warrant it.

We actually don't have to concoct hypotheticals to understand both that the woman had been caught in the act of adultery, a thing scripture states, or that she was guilty, a thing Christ notes when he admonishes her to go and sin no more.

The most significant point in the story is that the witnesses left without being the first to throw stones.

No, the most significant point in the story is Jesus writing in the dirt, relative to his act of mercy, rejection of the authority of the men, and acknowledgment of the woman's guilt.

Since Jesus was not one of the witnesses, He would have to wait until the witnesses threw the first stones before He could do anything, otherwise He would be in violation of the Law, and it didn't matter whether He knew she was guilty or innocent.

No. The law served justice, not the other way around. You're making a mistake similar to the one made when the disciples plucked wheat to the outrage of priests.

 

[Stripe]

Her death would have served the spirit of the law.

:darwinsm:

The entire point of the Bible is that the law doesn't have spirit.

And for a lawyer to ignore the letter of the law to push his notions by asserting what the spirit of the law... :nono:

You are required to adhere to the letter of the law.

When you don't do that, you disqualify yourself from commenting on the spirit.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[genuineoriginal]

You're one of the people who would gladly have the woman in the passage executed as you support the DP for adultery.

Nope.
You seem to forget what I stated in an earlier post of mine.

The Law was written in such a manner that the majority of people who commit capital offenses would get off on just that technicality (lack of witnesses).
This would prevent a lot of innocent people from being put to death for crimes they did not commit and would let a lot of people that are guilty get away with it as well.

If I believe that the Law was written so that the majority of people who commit capital offenses (crimes worthy of the death penalty) will get away with murder (and adultery, etc.) because of a lack of witnesses, there is no way that I would gladly have the woman in the passage executed when there were no witnesses to testify against her.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I didn't forget it. I also understand the failures of the trap. Just as I understand Christ could have set that out and rebuked the effort and instructed them in justice. Because the woman was guilty and her death would have served the spirit of the law, which was justice.

You seem to be very ignorant of the Law and of God who gave the Law if you think God is all about justice without mercy.

Micah 6:8 8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?​

Would it have been just to execute the adulteress without any witnesses to testify against her?
No.
Would it have been just to execute the adulteress without executing the adulterer?
Again no.

Why would you think that Jesus would do something so unjust?

I'm not and have not been confused by what the instigators of the encounter were attempting. I've spoken directly to it prior, as well as noting that reading the response of Jesus as that of a man escaping a trap is to require of him the sort of conduct we'd condemn in a lawyer and decry as unjust. In fact, it's a routine illustration of a corrupt system by many who want to object to it, that lawyers get the guilty off on technicalities.

Jesus did not do it the way you expected Him to do it?
That is your excuse?

You are too steeped in the corruption that lawyers are accused of to understand that Jesus used the actual words of the Law to confound a trap set by legalists.

There was no requirement that an executioner be sinless, only that the accusers (the two or more) would be the first to stone the condemned.

The requirement is that the witnesses are not false witnesses.
The scribes and Pharisees failed that criteria, which is the only real explanation for why Jesus said "let he who is without sin".

Wait, are you going to suggest that the people who had noted Jesus' wisdom in relation to the law, would as a trap attempt something anyone with a modest understanding of Mosaic punishment would understand as errant?

Yes, the scribes and Pharisees did not have as good of an understanding of the Law of Moses as they thought.
They spent most of their time learning about the Oral Tradition and parsing the Torah to find gematria and midrashim instead of learning what the Law actually stated.
If you read the Gospel of Matthew, you will find that a significant part of it is devoted to Jesus correcting the errors of the scribes and Pharisees.

We actually don't have to concoct hypotheticals to understand both that the woman had been caught in the act of adultery, a thing scripture states, or that she was guilty, a thing Christ notes when he admonishes her to go and sin no more.

We also don't have to concoct hypotheticals about what justice is when those hypotheticals involve getting justice by violating the Law.

The law served justice, not the other way around.

You seem to be very ignorant of the Law and of God who gave the Law if you think God is all about justice without mercy.

 

[Town Heretic]

You seem to be very ignorant of the Law and of God who gave the Law if you think God is all about justice without mercy.

What I actually wrote was about the law and its purpose before Christ's foreshadowing and the cross. I think that when you make Christ into the worst sort of lawyer, shrugging off justice in the name of legal technicality, it's a bad notion and a sure sign you've missed something important.

Would it have been just to execute the adulteress without any witnesses to testify against her?

Yes. Because she was guilty and God knew her to be. The point of any process and witness is to render a just verdict.

Would it have been just to execute the adulteress without executing the adulterer?

Yes, though Christ could have given the charge on that point as well. If your actions merit a sentence the absence of a co-conspirator shouldn't absolve you of your guilt.

Why would you think that Jesus would do something so unjust?

I literally never said that he did something unjust. I've said that he did something a few of you are deeply invested in not accepting, which is a very different thing.

Jesus did not do it the way you expected Him to do it?
That is your excuse?

I'm not advancing or looking for an excuse to explain something I didn't expect.

You are too steeped in the corruption that lawyers are accused of to understand that Jesus used the actual words of the Law to confound a trap set by legalists.

You're too invested in preserving your understanding of the narrative to see that Jesus wasn't avoiding a trap he could walk out of with a pronouncement of insufficiency on the part of that crowd within the context of the law. He didn't give that instruction. He did something else.

The requirement is that the witnesses are not false witnesses.
The scribes and Pharisees failed that criteria, which is the only real explanation for why Jesus said "let he who is without sin".

It not only isn't, you've been given another.

Yes, the scribes and Pharisees did not have as good of an understanding of the Law of Moses as they thought.

That's contrary to common sense. The trap was concocted by people who would be responsible for the operation of the law. You should take a look at the witness bit I reproduced from the site on Jewish law.

We also don't have to concoct hypotheticals about what justice is when those hypotheticals involve getting justice by violating the Law.

I'm confident that if we had a murderer who got off because a lawyer noted a technical failing in procedure no one trying to advance this would say that justice was served, but you have to say it here or you have a problem. So you say it.

You seem to be very ignorant of the Law and of God who gave the Law if you think God is all about justice without mercy.

That again? I think that when you make Christ into the worst sort of lawyer, shrugging off justice in the name of legal technicality, it's a bad notion and a sure sign you've missed something important.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

When you make Christ into the worst sort of lawyer, shrugging off justice in the name of legal technicality, it's a bad notion and a sure sign you've missed something important.

This is ridiculous.

God wrote the law. He put in the "technicality" that both people committing adultery were to be tried.

But you think He should ignore what He wrote. :dizzy:

It is you who has missed something important: The words on the page.

Yes.

So you reject God's law.

She was guilty and God knew her to be.

And yet you violate the law by endorsing this nonsense.

The point of any process and witness is to render a just verdict.

You're not following the process.

If your actions merit a sentence the absence of a co-conspirator shouldn't absolve you of your guilt.

Tell God. He wrote the law that you want to eradicate.

I've said that he did something a few of you are deeply invested in not accepting, which is a very different thing.

You assert, sans evidence — a declarative, if you will — that Jesus "fulfilled" the law. And by "fulfilled," you mean "eradicated." Then you proceed to invent laws of your own liking.

We do not accept your made-up explanation. Especially when we have the law to look at.

I'm confident that if we had a murderer who got off because a lawyer noted a technical failing in procedure no one trying to advance this would say that justice was served, but you have to say it here or you have a problem. So you say it.

If the law says you cannot convict someone of murder under circumstance A and then A arises, there are two possibilities:

1. The law is bad and should be changed (and the man should not be convicted).
2. The law is good (and the man should not be convicted).

Either way, calling God's standards a "technicality" and ignoring them is a bad way to go about justifying your narrative.

And here's another question you won't answer: Was God's law good? It said the man and the woman should be executed. Was that good, or was it a "technicality"?

I think that when you make Christ into the worst sort of lawyer, shrugging off the law in the name of your made-up ideas, it's a bad notion and a sure sign that you've missed something important.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

No, two is not always enough.

Who said 'always'? You did. And only you, to apparently make the 'no' appear reasonable or connected when neither is the case.

Which has little to nothing to do with what I'm talking about, and you you still insist on correcting me when you're not even paying attention to what I'm saying.

It has everything to do with my proffer, which is what I've been talking about. And you mean I'm not paying attention to what you say to another, which is true. I'm also not reading whatever is on your end table. lain:

You're admitting that you're not reading every post

I'm telling you that I don't. An admission sounds like a fault, which it wouldn't be evidence of.

and then when you DO reply to my post it's

Within the context of our conversation.

Either address my arguments within the context of the points I have made, or don't address them at all.

I've addressed everything you say to me. Nothing you've said to me makes your case that Christ is more concerned with the jot and tittle of process than he is in punishing someone whose actions merit that punishment. Nothing in what you've said to me reconciles his silence on the process you believe and advance is the soul of his response.

That sort of thing.

I have not "amended" my position, my position is the same. I just responded to your claim that he was a Christian.

His claim, which I note, as I note your own. And yes, you've amended your position, which was: "I would love a friend request from Obama. Would give me a chance to have a nice chat with him about where he'll exist for the rest of eternity." The more benign redrafting in approach had a different tone and point. But good on you for adopting it at any rate. It's an improvement.

It does, for the reason I explained above.

No, that didn't do it. My argument doesn't rest on the liberality or focus of your use of witness. In the case of the woman the witnesses would have been two people offering testimony. I don't know if those two were present or not, because Christ doesn't ask for witnesses. Instead, he proffers a different litmus, one no one in the mob will attempt to meet before him. I've told you why I believe he did that.

Then allow me to supply you with verses that show that "witness" means more than just "eyewitness" in the Bible, so that you can agree, and then we can move on.

I literally just got through telling you that it is immaterial to the point. It's also hard to miss the large section about witness that I've put into this thread. And given your belief that you should be on top of whatever someone writes here...

 

[Stripe]

Who said 'always'? You did. And only you, to apparently make the 'no' appear reasonable or connected when neither is the case.

You need to take a course in basic comprehension. Your words: "Two would be enough."

When one disagrees with that, a response of "two is not always enough" is correct. If he did not say "always," he would not be correct.

Yes, he said "not always." That was the correct manner in which to set you straight.

Basic comprehension.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

This is ridiculous. God wrote the law. He put in the "technicality" that both people committing adultery were to be tried.

The technicality was to promote justice among men, who aren't privy to our hearts. Christ knew that she was guilty. He told us so. And he let her go. I believe there's a reason for that, just as I believe there's a reason why he wrote in the dirt, why he failed to correct their impression of the demands of the law to illustrate another point in his actual charge.

But you think He should ignore what He wrote.

Rather, I think we should not make justice a servant of the law instead of the law a servant of justice and if we do then we make the same sort of mistake I noted with the priests and the wheat the apostles ate.

So you reject God's law.

No, I reject your understanding of the narrative.

I'm omitting the following and equally flawed attempt to make this about me, which just isn't interesting to me. Likewise, parroting a form without the substance that makes it meaningful.

 

[Stripe]

The technicality was to promote justice among men, who aren't privy to our hearts. Christ knew that she was guilty. He told us so. And he let her go. I believe there's a reason for that, just as I believe there's a reason why he wrote in the dirt, why he failed to correct their impression of the demands of the law to illustrate another point in his actual charge.

It's very nice that you believe things.

When you've got something scriptural or rational to back it up, it will have a shot at being useful. :up:

I think we should not make justice a servant of the law.

A platitude unconnected to anything anyone has said.

The law is words written in stone.

Justice is repayment for crime.

Both are of God.

No, I reject your understanding of the narrative.

No, you reject the law. The law says both should be tried; you say one should have been tried.

Objectively, you reject the law.

I'm omitting...

...the question you won't answer.

Is God's law good?

You call it a "technicality" and criticize us for saying Jesus applied it. Is it good?

Is it?

We know you won't answer, and it's clear why you won't.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

It's very nice that you believe things. When you've got something scriptural or rational to back it up, it will have a shot at being useful.

Did that. You shouldn't conflate your disagreement with an absence of rationality. It isn't at all. We can differ without either of us being more or less than at odds in our reading. And, to give you more credit than you'll ever give anyone who differs with you, that's what's happening here.

A platitude unconnected to anything anyone has said.

It's neither of those. Again, it's clear you and a couple of others I've been talking to have a narrative understanding that you believe is true and rooted in a reading that makes sense for you. I think you've missed something important, but not salvific, so I'm okay with leaving it at that.

No, you reject the law.

No, just your understanding of that narrative.

The law says both should be tried; you say one should have been tried.

No, I never actually did. I've said she was guilty and that it was then just for her to be punished, that Christ could have instructed the crowd in their mishandling of the law and that he did something different. I think he did it for a reason that I've articulated.

Objectively, you reject the law.

Also no. Supra.

Is God's law good? You call it a "technicality"

No, I never did. See, you don't have the foundation right. The law was just. It served justice and made the case, observing men in relation to it, that we were willfully insufficient, that we required grace, mercy, Christ and his sacrifice. All God's works, including the law, are good, fashioned to His purpose.

and criticize us for saying Jesus applied it. Is it good?

Rather, I think you miss something that would help you, could help others, but isn't salvific.

 

[genuineoriginal]

What I actually wrote was about the law and its purpose before Christ's foreshadowing and the cross. I think that when you make Christ into the worst sort of lawyer, shrugging off justice in the name of legal technicality, it's a bad notion and a sure sign you've missed something important.

I admire the skill of Jesus in turning a trap set for Him against those that were setting it.
The Law was not written in an ambiguous manner that would require the worst sort of lawyer to twist and churn the words of the law in order to create a miscarriage of justice.
That Law was written in a clear manner that can easily show any average person that the woman could not legally be prosecuted without two or three witnesses.

You somehow can't get over the absurd idea that justice can be served by violating the legal procedures set forth in the Law.

Would it have been just to execute the adulteress without any witnesses to testify against her?

Yes. Because she was guilty and God knew her to be. The point of any process and witness is to render a just verdict.

You seem to think that there is no purpose in having legal proceedings defined in the Law.
What you are advocating is vigilante justice.

Frontier justice (also called vigilante justice[1] or street justice) is extrajudicial punishment that is motivated by the nonexistence of law and order or dissatisfaction with justice. The phrase can also be used to describe a prejudiced judge. Lynching and gunfighting are considered forms of frontier justice.

​

You are clearly dissatisfied with what Jesus did in ensuring justice was met according to the Law.

Would it have been just to execute the adulteress without executing the adulterer?

Yes, though Christ could have given the charge on that point as well. If your actions merit a sentence the absence of a co-conspirator shouldn't absolve you of your guilt.

You don't care that the guilty adulterer went free, but you do care that the woman was not put to death without witnesses?
Maybe you have heard this: "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".

I literally never said that he did something unjust. I've said that he did something a few of you are deeply invested in not accepting, which is a very different thing.

You keep suggesting that Jesus SHOULD HAVE done unjust things, such as putting someone to death without any witnesses.

Jesus wasn't avoiding a trap he could walk out of with a pronouncement of insufficiency on the part of that crowd within the context of the law. He didn't give that instruction. He did something else.

You keep saying that Jesus did not handle the trap the way you thought He should have.
If Jesus had done what you claim He should have done, the scribes and Pharisees would have stood there arguing about the Law and may have started throwing stones at both Jesus and the woman.

John 8:59 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.​

Because Jesus handled it the way He did, the situation was defused and the Law was satisfied.

Yes, the scribes and Pharisees did not have as good of an understanding of the Law of Moses as they thought.

That's contrary to common sense. The trap was concocted by people who would be responsible for the operation of the law. You should take a look at the witness bit I reproduced from the site on Jewish law.

No, the trap was not concocted by the Sadducees and the Sanhedrin, who were responsible for the operation of the Law.
The trap was concocted by the scribes and the Pharisees who put more weight to the Oral Traditions than the written Torah and thought they knew more than they actually knew.

I'm confident that if we had a murderer who got off because a lawyer noted a technical failing in procedure no one trying to advance this would say that justice was served, but you have to say it here or you have a problem. So you say it.

With the legal system in America, I would never say that justice was served, because the system is inherently unjust.

With God's Law, there is a lot less ways to pervert the system.
First, there are no lawyers whose only job is to find technical loopholes.
Second, there must be two or three witnesses to testify about the guilt of the accused.
Third, there must be judges (plural) to hear the testimony and ensure the credibility of the witnesses.
Fourth, false witnesses get the penalty they wanted to be given to the falsely accused.
Fifth, if God's Law is followed, then any guilty person that does not receive punishment has benefited from God's mercy.

I think that when you make Christ into the worst sort of lawyer, shrugging off justice in the name of legal technicality, it's a bad notion and a sure sign you've missed something important.

Yes, YOUR misinterpretation of what happened and thinking it makes Jesus into "the worst sort of lawyer" is a sure sign that YOU have missed something important.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Christ knew that she was guilty. He told us so. And he let her go. I believe there's a reason for that

The reason is: "Jesus refused to violate the Law".

 

[Stripe]

You shouldn't conflate your disagreement with an absence of rationality.

An unsupported assertion isn't irrational. It's just not supported.

Try to respond to what people say, not what you wish they would say.

We can differ without either of us being more or less than at odds in our reading. And, to give you more credit than you'll ever give anyone who differs with you, that's what's happening here.

English, dude. English.

It's neither of those.

Platitude.

You make an assertion that sounds nice, but isn't of any value to the conversation.

Nobody is making "justice the servant of the law."

Again, it's clear you and a couple of others I've been talking to have a narrative understanding that you believe is true and rooted in a reading that makes sense for you. I think you've missed something important, but not salvific, so I'm okay with leaving it at that.

It's not us who are ignoring the law. That would be you.

You say we are focused on a "technicality." That would be the law.

It's not a narrative; it's scripture. You have a story that is unsupported by anything except your preference.

No, I never actually did.

Actually, you did. You say Jesus did not apply the law. You have reasons other than the law behind why the legalists walked away. We have nothing to support your idea other than your insistence that it would be nicer, or something.

I've said she was guilty and that it was then just for her to be punished.

Only because you characterize the law as a "technicality." Jesus wrote the law. He applied it. That's why His words were effective.

Your approach makes the law of no effect. "He without sin" would mean no judgements were carried out, as would "go and sin no more."

You have a superficial understanding of this story and contempt for those who explain it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

No, I never did.

Now you're just lying through your teeth.

We say that Jesus applied the law. We quote the law. You describe us as turning Jesus into the "worst kind of lawyer," seeking acquittal through a "technicality."

This is how the conversation had gone. You characterize the law — the words you refuse to acknowledge — as a "technicality."

Yes, you repeatedly did.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk