The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Town Heretic]

I admire the skill of Jesus in turning a trap set for Him against those that were setting it.

What skill? They blew more than one foundational truth of the process, according to your side of this difference, from witnesses to judges, to parties. That's like a lawyer failing to have the accused identified in a courtroom and then calling another lawyer pointing that out skillful...I mean, it's evidence of a knowledge that each party should have. It isn't particularly skillful.

Another reason why I don't believe that's the point of the narrative.

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.

See, you're actually helping me with that, supra. Though to be fair, we don't know that there weren't witnesses. We don't know much about particulars other than he is presented with someone caught in the act of adultery, someone guilty of the crime, and that Jesus found a way not to lecture about the law or demonstrate his knowledge of it to the accusers, but to do something else.

It's the something else I find compelling. But as I just got through saying to the other guys, it's not going to imperil anyone's salvation, so I'm about at the end of the conversation, having set out what I meant to and understanding the positions contrary to it.

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

Rather, in this case justice (punishment for a crime for which the accused is guilty) is thwarted by process. That's making justice a servant of the law and not the law of justice. I think that's a mistake that illustrates the insufficiency of your reading, but I don't believe we're going to alter any stances here, so...

You seem to think that there is no purpose in having legal proceedings defined in the Law.

Not only isn't that reasonable, given my former profession it's not very likely as presumptions go. No, I think the letter serves the spirit, not the other way around, which is why we don't treat the father rushing his wife to the hospital the way we do a kid racing his car down the road for fun.

What you are advocating is vigilante justice.

Not even a little true. What I've noted is that Christ could have explained the insufficiency of their approach under the law and what they were to do to rectify that and serve justice. He didn't. I think that why he didn't can be reasoned and is both interesting and compelling.

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

Rather, I clearly don't believe he was doing what you believe he was doing.

You don't care that the guilty adulterer went free

That's not only untrue, it doesn't reasonably follow. Say three men killed a family and a crowd caught the first. Suggesting that to note justice can be served on the one caught without the other two being punished is not to be indifferent to those avoiding justice.

but you do care that the woman was not put to death without witnesses?

Neither of us know that to be the case. The people present, which may have included witnesses (we are told she was caught in the act) are dismissed by another means. No one is asked to bear witness.

Maybe you have heard this: "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".

I suppose this is where I could drop a quote about confusing presumption with understanding, but I won't.

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

I've done nothing of the sort. To the contrary, I've said that Jesus could have lectured them on their error before the law and how to rectify it to see justice done, because he knew her to be guilty and, despite the attempt to trap him, Jesus was in a position of authority. He didn't do that. He did another thing. I've been noting that and why I think he did it.

You keep saying that Jesus did not handle the trap the way you thought He should have.

No, I haven't. Not once. I've said it's your reading that should promote a different action, not mine. And I've told you why.

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.

That really just doesn't hold up, as I've noted. It's a fundamental question of procedure meant to trap. They have to understand the procedure or there's no trap. And they have to believe Jesus doesn't understand that essential procedure. Plus, according to you they missed nearly every required element.

With the legal system in America, I would never say that justice was served, because the system is inherently unjust.[/QUOTE
You'd be wrong, but that's a longer conversation.

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.

Well, no. Nothing you set out was something unknown to me, though the last part about a technical failure equaling mercy wasn't objectively true.

Thanks for the conversation. I don't see you moving on the point and I haven't seen anything that moves me off my reading. But it's always good to exchange ideas and to take a look at what we believe and why, so there's value in that much.

 

[Town Heretic]

Now you're just lying through your teeth.

No, but you're bearing false witness for God knows what reason. You wrote that I said God's law was a technicality. I never did. I said that your reading makes Christ the worst sort of lawyer. And I told you why.

Stop being emotional and a slave to your malice. In the meantime you're on ignore.

 

[Stripe]

No.

Yes.

God said both should face trial. When we appealed to the law, you called it a "technicality."

That's the word you used, and you used it to describe the law. Shoving us — our "narrative" — into the equation doesn't change anything.

God says "both."

You say "technicality."

You're a liar.

You're bearing false witness.

Nope. Law: "Both."
You: "Technicality."

You wrote that I said God's law was a technicality.

Yip.

I never did.

Numerous times, in fact.

I said that your reading makes Christ the worst sort of lawyer. And I told you why.

That's right. Your reason was because we were painting Him as appealing to a "technicality." You don't get to cut off the end of the sentence and pretend you never said it.

Stop being emotional and a slave to your malice. In the meantime you're on ignore.

:darwinsm:

Let's hope it sticks this time. :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

"Stop being emotional and a slave to your malice." In the meantime, I'm going to do something petty and spiteful.

:rotfl:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Dupe

 

[Stripe]

Another reason why I don't believe that's the point of the narrative.

You're not qualified to talk about the "point of the narrative" when you refuse to acknowledge the law.

Understanding the positions contrary to it.

You haven't once honestly represented what we have said.

Rather, in this case justice (punishment for a crime for which the accused is guilty) is thwarted by process. That's making justice a servant of the law.

God wrote the law. Take it up with Him.

I think the letter serves the spirit, not the other way around, which is why we don't treat the father rushing his wife to the hospital the way we do a kid racing his car down the road for fun.

You are only qualified to discuss the spirit when you respect the letter.

You're in no position to suspend the law when you will not read it. Nor are you justified when you think it has been "fulfilled" (read: "eradicated").

What I've noted is that Christ could have explained the insufficiency of their approach under the law and what they were to do to rectify that and serve justice. He didn't.

There's every reason to believe that He did, and ample description of when and where it might have happened.

He had to answer according to the law, because the legalists brought to Him a legal case.

The law says adulterers should be executed. It would not work to simply say "he without sin." That would make the law of no use.

He had to show from the law how she was not to be executed. With a little study and maybe some guidance, the answer becomes obvious.

But Town wants to push some story about how that law doesn't apply, but his does.

I think that why he didn't can be reasoned and is both interesting and compelling.

Question-begging nonsense. He could well have conveyed the law and there is descriptions of how and when.

Rather, I clearly don't believe he was doing what you believe he was doing.

You have spent no time considering what "we believe He was doing."

He was addressing numerous groups. The legalists He showed the law. The commonfolk He showed self-reflection. The willing He showed wisdom. The willingly ignorant He showed nonsense.

"Go and sin no more" is nonsense to someone who thinks the law has been "fulfilled."

Jesus could have lectured them on their error before the law and how to rectify it to see justice done, because he knew her to be guilty and, despite the attempt to trap him, Jesus was in a position of authority. He didn't do that. He did another thing. I've been noting that and why I think he did it.

This is a logical fallacy; an argument from silence.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[genuineoriginal]

Thanks for the conversation. I don't see you moving on the point and I haven't seen anything that moves me off my reading. But it's always good to exchange ideas and to take a look at what we believe and why, so there's value in that much.

Our differences appear to be based on the way we view scriptures as a whole.
I attempt to harmonize the Old Testament and New Testament and look at how the teachings from one supports the teachings from the other (and visa versa).
This makes me look closer at the Old Testament laws and what is written in the Law and prophets.

I think I have a good example from the New Testament for this approach.

Acts 28:23 23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.​

If others try to teach Jesus without support from the Old Testament, I have to wonder about what they are using to support their teachings.

 

[Stripe]

That's not only untrue, it doesn't reasonably follow. Say three men killed a family and a crowd caught the first. Suggesting that to note justice can be served on the one caught without the other two being punished is not to be indifferent to those avoiding justice.

And this shows how utterly ignorant you are of the law.

There is a reason for the "both" in the law against adultery that could never apply for murder.

A four-year-old could figure that out.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[genuineoriginal]

Jesus could have lectured them on their error before the law and how to rectify it to see justice done, because he knew her to be guilty and, despite the attempt to trap him, Jesus was in a position of authority. He didn't do that.

If Jesus did lecture them on how to properly put the adulteress to death, then Jesus would have violated this commandment from the Law.

Exodus 23:2 2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:​

He did another thing. I've been noting that and why I think he did it.

I still can't figure out what you think Jesus did and the reasons you think He had for doing it.

 

[Town Heretic]

If Jesus did lecture them on how to properly put the adulteress to death, then Jesus would have violated this commandment from the Law.

Well, no. It would be the opposite of doing or assisting evil, given the woman was guilty and the error was in their approach. It would be correcting an error in process meant to serve the justice imparted by the law. Or an instruction in why (assuming no witnesses can be produced, judges in authority on the point, etc.) no justice could be worked under the law as it sat. But in any event he chose another course and I've told you what I think about it.

I still can't figure out what you think Jesus did and the reasons you think He had for doing it.

Interesting. I think I've been fairly clear on the point, so I suspect it could be your bias filter.

And this shows how utterly ignorant you are of the law.

No, it shows that the charge made (I was indifferent to the other guilty party) isn't reasonable.

 

[Town Heretic]

God wrote the law. Take it up with Him.

God fulfilled the law. There's no conflict for me to resolve.

You are only qualified to discuss the spirit when you respect the letter.

You should get a job writing bumper stickers.

You're in no position to suspend the law when you will not read it.

Because you stink on ice at mind reading.

Nor are you justified when you think it has been "fulfilled" (read: "eradicated").

He did come to and in fact did fulfill the law. Eradicated is your word and part of your larger effort to distort something you don't appear to actually understand.

He had to answer according to the law

He could have instructed in the law. He didn't. At any point. At some point you should wonder why that was.

because the legalists brought to Him a legal case.

Legalists? One of you circling only just told me they didn't know the foundational truths of process. I mean simple, fundamental requirements. There's a fly in your ointment...another one, I mean.

The law says adulterers should be executed. It would not work to simply say "he without sin." That would make the law of no use. He had to show from the law how she was not to be executed.

He didn't. He set a standard that wasn't a part of that process, a sinlessness that shamed those who would trap him and those who would judge and harm the woman. You should wonder at that. It precluded any witness, because no one was going to pass the litmus. Well, no one except the judge who did not condemn her.

But Town wants to push some story about how that law doesn't apply, but his does.

You should stick to not making your case well instead of trying to not make mine. I figure you have to understand your own, at least. But I'm an optimist.

You have spent no time considering what "we believe He was doing."

Wrong, but like you.

He was addressing numerous groups. The legalists He showed the law. The commonfolk He showed self-reflection. The willing He showed wisdom. The willingly ignorant He showed nonsense.

You must have an unabridged version. The King James doesn't have most of that in it. It does have a group of people trying to get Christ to act as judge and being put in their place.

"Go and sin no more" is nonsense to someone who thinks the law has been "fulfilled."

Well, then you must be arguing against your actual part, because that certainly qualifies as nonsense.

This is a logical fallacy; an argument from silence.

That's a declaration, the appearance of argument lacking the elements that comprise it.

I was more than willing that all of us should step away having set out our parts, but if you're determined to dishonestly or ignorantly misstate me I'm going to be answering with the funny stick and notes to prior argument until you need another mark in your signature line.

Entirely up to you.

 

[Stripe]

No.

Yes.

There is an obvious and good reason for the "both" in the adultery law that could never apply for murder.

A four-year-old could figure that out.

It shows that the charge made (I was indifferent to the other guilty party) isn't reasonable.

Nobody knows what you're talking about. What charge? The one against the woman? Of course it wasn't reasonable. It wasn't lawful.

Talking about its reasonableness is stupid when you ignore its lawlessness (or your "technicality").

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[genuineoriginal]

Well, no. It would be the opposite of doing or assisting evil, given the woman was guilty and the error was in their approach. It would be correcting an error in process meant to serve the justice imparted by the law. Or an instruction in why (assuming no witnesses can be produced, judges in authority on the point, etc.) no justice could be worked under the law as it sat.

Your argument only works is the scribes and Pharisees did not bring the woman to Jesus in order to find a way to accuse Jesus.

John 8:6 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.​

They did not bring the woman to Jesus to seek justice, they brought the woman to Jesus to do evil.
If they wanted justice, they would have taken the man caught in adultery and the woman caught in adultery to the Sanhedrin.

Having a better knowledge of the times and culture that Jesus lived in would go a long way to help you to avoid mistakes like that.

But in any event he chose another course and I've told you what I think about it.
Interesting. I think I've been fairly clear on the point, so I suspect it could be your bias filter.

I have posted scripture after scripture and pointed out how the scriptures apply to the points I have been making that Jesus defeated the self-proclaimed experts in the Law by using His perfect understanding of the Law.

You keep stating that Jesus could have done something different than He did as if the outcome of doing that different thig would have been right and what Jesus actually did was wrong.
You have been basing this upon your own notion of what justice is and not on what the scriptures state about justice.

You have not been providing any scriptures to back up your suppositions, nor have you been forthcoming with what you think Jesus was really trying to accomplish.

No, you haven't been clear on what your point is.

 

[genuineoriginal]

He could have instructed in the law. He didn't. At any point.

He could have summoned ten thousand angels, but He didn't.
Speculating on what Jesus could have done instead of what He did is a pointless exercise in futility.

 

[genuineoriginal]

He set a standard that wasn't a part of that process, a sinlessness that shamed those who would trap him and those who would judge and harm the woman. You should wonder at that. It precluded any witness, because no one was going to pass the litmus. Well, no one except the judge who did not condemn her.

This must be the point you haven't been clear about.

What do you have to back up this notion that Jesus set a standard of sinlessness in answer to a trap based upon the letter of the Law?

 

[Stripe]

God fulfilled the law.

This is a non sequitur, a logical fallacy.

Let's remember, your accusation is: "Justice is thwarted by process."

God wrote the law (your "process"). If He didn't want "justice thwarted," He shouldn't have written the "process."

And none of this is alleviated by equivocating on the definition of "fulfilled."

It doesn't mean "eradicated."

The law was in force and still is.

There's no conflict for me to resolve.

:darwinsm:

He could have instructed in the law.

He almost certainly did.

He didn't

This is an argument from silence, another logical fallacy.

At some point you should wonder why you keep making those.

Legalists?

Yes. Those who sought to test Him on the law that He wrote.

One of you circling only just told me they didn't know the foundational truths of process.

Therefore, something. :idunno:

I'm going to be answering with ... notes to prior argument.

It's your "prior arguments" that either don't exist or have been exposed as fallacious.

Relying on supraman won't help you.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

This must be the point you haven't been clear about.

What do you have to back up this notion that Jesus set a standard of sinlessness in answer to a trap based upon the letter of the Law?

His words. What he literally declared to the crowd that had them turn away.

He could have summoned ten thousand angels, but He didn't.

The difference being summoning angels wouldn't have anything to do with the charge and trap being set while answering on the law, which was being abused, and instructing in it would have.

Speculating on what Jesus could have done instead of what He did is a pointless exercise in futility.

I don't agree with that at all. It's like saying there's no value in considering what he does against any other course of action that has meaning. That's not reasonable. In any event, I'm largely speaking to what he did, with consideration given to what would appear to me to be more reasonable (and why) if he had another intent, the intent you believe is true.

I don't think your understanding of the narrative works very well. From the legalists who don't know simple, foundational necessaries, to the absence of comment on the law by Christ.

Nobody knows what you're talking about.

Like you conducted a poll in the rush to get this out. lain: Maybe you should have waited until you did. Or at least until you can give the appearance of having actually read the thing you by appearances mean to respond to.

What charge? The one against the woman?

Like that. The answer is literally in the quote. Here it is again:

"No, it shows that the charge made (I was indifferent to the other guilty party) isn't reasonable."

Shouldn't have answered that much. I'll keep up the conversation with gen, maybe JR, but trying to juggle three at the same time isn't productive (especially given so much similar ground and your method) and I'm going to forget who said what at some point. Given you're mostly distorting what I'm actually saying I'm just going to start noting that and passing on any more so long as you persist in it...or was it you I was placing on ignore?

Okay, functionally anyway. I will note what you're doing, but I'm not going to have a conversation with you because you've chosen a disreputable methodology and there's nothing good that will come of it.

EDIT: looking back, I've reported the "liar" post and suggested we have the don't speak to and don't speak of restriction invoked by the mods.

 

[Stripe]

His words. What he literally declared to the crowd that had them turn away.

The crowd didn't turn away. The legalists did.

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying: “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”
John 8:12 NKJV

They turned away because their case fell to pieces when exposed to the law. They would not have turned away if all they heard was "he with no sin."

Why would they?

Because Jesus was without sin? Because they felt ashamed? Because the law was "fulfilled"?

Your argument is woefully undeveloped.

But supraman will save you.

I'm largely speaking to what he did, with consideration given to what would appear to me to be more reasonable (and why) if he had another intent, the intent you believe is true.

You're not justified in speculating about intent when you won't respect the law.

The answer is literally in the quote. Here it is again:

"No, it shows that the charge made (I was indifferent to the other guilty party) isn't reasonable."

What charge? The one against the woman? You were talking about a trio of murderers as well.

Of course the charge against the woman wasn't reasonable. It wasn't lawful.

Shouldn't have answered that much. I'll keep up the conversation with gen, maybe JR, but trying to juggle three at the same time isn't productive (especially given so much similar ground and your method) and I'm going to forget who said what at some point. Given you're mostly distorting what I'm actually saying I'm just going to start noting that and passing on any more so long as you persist in it...or was it you I was placing on ignore? Okay, functionally anyway. I will note what you're doing, but I'm not going to have a conversation with you because you've chosen a disreputable methodology and there's nothing good that will come of it.

:yawn:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[eider]

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.

Look, since the OP (and you?) reckon that the left is dangerously unhinged, all of it (?) that suggests that about half the population of the USA is mentally disabled, just because of their political opinions. Right?

So now let's look at those who would wish to cherry pick capital offences from the OT whilst ignoring the actual words and actions of Jesus........ In your world you would want to hunt down and either painfully execute or beat LGBTs, adulterers, polygamists, polyamorists, children who curse their parents, and more, and all these in addition to assaulters, robbers, burglars, manslaughterers, murderers, defraudsters, deception fraudsters, bilkers, tax evaders (!!!) and more......... and some of you actually think that your World would soon be a nice one?

And you actually think that executing crimes of murder and manslaughter would reduce such crimes? That's unhinged, because what would most certainly happen is that once a person has killed, or any of the above offences, then they'll not consider giving themselves up for a slow painful death.... to stay free and alive they'll kill again and again.... and again.

Your idea of a Christian World wouldn't be a Christian World at all...... not by Jesus's words and action it wouldn't....... very dangerous, very unhinged...... a theocratic nightmare. And I wonder who would police your World? eh?

 

[eider]

Our differences appear to be based on the way we view scriptures as a whole.
I attempt to harmonize the Old Testament and New Testament and look at how the teachings from one supports the teachings from the other (and visa versa).
This makes me look closer at the Old Testament laws and what is written in the Law and prophets.

I think I have a good example from the New Testament for this approach.

Acts 28:23 23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.​

If others try to teach Jesus without support from the Old Testament, I have to wonder about what they are using to support their teachings.

So now you're trying to tell us that Jesus was not crystal clear, and that you need to guess what he wanted by choosing your own verses? Wow! Shocking