The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[genuineoriginal]

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.

I can't accept a doctrine that is based on a single verse as being a valid doctrine.
Do you have any additional scriptural support for the idea that Jesus implemented a new standard of sinlessness?

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.

The possible options you provided for Jesus to do would have ended with the death of the woman and you discounted any other explanation that would have resulted in the woman living because you thought it would have made Jesus into the "worst type of lawyer" simply because He had a superior knowledge of the Law.
It looks more like you were trying to play "Devils advocate" against our explanations instead of trying to provide a reasonable explanation of your own.

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.

My understanding of the matter is echoed in many commentaries about the passage.
All of the commentaries that refer to Leviticus 20:10 are based on a similar understanding that the commandment in that verse was the most significant thing Jesus used to defeat the trap because it put the scribes and Pharisees in violation of the very Law that they were asking Jesus about.

The Current Perversion of John 8:1-11 This passage has been perverted in a number of egregious ways. First, this statement by Christ was hijacked to minimize adultery. “Oh, we all sin,” it is claimed. Here’s their line of reasoning. “In the instance of John 8:1-11, a woman committed adultery, but Jesus did not condemn her. We should not, therefore, make a ‘big deal’ over such a trifling and personal matter.” Others “paint” with an even broader brush. They allege that no one who is flawed himself by sin has the right to censure anyone for any transgression; after all, none of us is “without sin.” No one, therefore, possesses the moral authority to condemn. We believe, therefore, that a careful consideration of this context is warranted. It is more than obvious that the scribes and Pharisees were not the least interested in seeing true justice executed. Had they been in pursuit of justice, they would have taken the woman to the appropriate authorities for remedy. What did Jesus of Nazareth have to do with such legal affairs? Nothing at all. No, this was a trap laid for Christ. The accusers committed a colossal tactical blunder. Their charge itself contained information sufficient to expose their hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees emphatically declared that the poor woman had been caught “in the very act.” That is significant. When the Jewish leaders decided to be so specific, “in the very act,” they acknowledged an important point: they knew the identity of the male participant! What is the significance of that? Well, it is this: the Old Testament code demanded that both the adulteress and the adulterer be subjected to the same penalty (see Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). Where, then, was the man? These sanctimonious prosecutors were themselves in stark violation of the law. Had Jesus been under a commission to render a civil judgment in this case, he could not have countenanced this “kangaroo” procedure. The thrust of Christ’s statement—“He that is without sin . . .”—was this: “None of you is in a position to stone this woman, for you have disregarded the very law you profess to honor. It is a travesty.”

​

In this commentary, the author puts forth the supposition that the scribes and Pharisees were so intent in springing their trap that they didn't realize that they themselves were violating the commandment until Jesus spoke the words "he that is without sin".
That would answer your objections about my narrative having "legalists who don't know simple, foundational necessaries".

 

[genuineoriginal]

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?

Have you spent any time at all trying to figure out why the capital offenses listed in the Torah were deemed to be worthy of death?
I have.

And you actually think that executing crimes of murder and manslaughter would reduce such crimes?

Yes, in this example the number of people that would even consider working on the Sabbath day was reduced.

Numbers 15:32-36 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.​

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.

You seem to be ignoring the FACT that a proper application of the death penalty will drastically lower the number of people who would risk committing a capital offense in the first place.
This has been proven historically:

Vlad the Impaler To ensure absolute loyalty and submission among his people Dracula employed a terror tactic he witnessed in captivity, public execution using a foul tactic; Impalement. Although his methods were highly unnecessary they did their job more than well, there was absolutely no crime in Transylvania and no one dared speak out about him.

​

Your idea of a Christian World wouldn't be a Christian World at all

I have compared the effectiveness of the Law that God gave with the ineffectiveness of the American legal system.
You seem to want an ineffective system instead of an effective system.
That is unhinged.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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

Luke 24:25-27 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.​

 

[Town Heretic]

I can't accept a doctrine that is based on a single verse as being a valid doctrine.

It's not offered as a doctrine. It's the necessary answer to your question about the standard. That was the standard he offered for the judgment of the woman. It, and not any legal doctrine, was his rebuttal to their attempt.

The possible options you provided for Jesus to do would have ended with the death of the woman

Only if they met the demands of the law, which is rather what you and yours are arguing for and what you appear to be saying could not happen, which is an argument against your saying her death would be inevitable.

Now Jesus, knowing her guilt, could have provided them with the route by which the law would be satisfied, but he didn't.

and you discounted any other explanation that would have resulted in the woman living because you thought it would have made Jesus into the "worst type of lawyer" simply because He had a superior knowledge of the Law.

Rather, I noted that to defeat the aim of the law (justice) with the letter of the law is to work an injury to its point, which is to serve justice, not itself.

It looks more like you were trying to play "Devils advocate" against our explanations instead of trying to provide a reasonable explanation of your own.

I find the arguments I've been presented problematic on a number of fronts and I've noted that. I think there's another and better explanation and I've begun to work through what that is...though it's a consideration in progress. Some things are fairly clear to me on the point and some I'm still mulling.

My understanding of the matter is echoed in many commentaries about the passage.
All of the commentaries that refer to Leviticus 20:10 are based on a similar understanding that the commandment in that verse was the most significant thing Jesus used to defeat the trap because it put the scribes and Pharisees in violation of the very Law that they were asking Jesus about.

I've noted the problem with that view. The trap was wrong on so many obvious points that only someone without any sort of understanding would have been fooled by it as a matter of law. Christ didn't have the reputation of that sort. So, I think there must have been another agenda in that attempt, one that goes to who Christ was, the trap that would catch him in another violation of law after the garden.

This passage has been perverted in a number of egregious ways. First, this statement by Christ was hijacked to minimize adultery. “Oh, we all sin,” it is claimed.

That's true enough, but not a part of my advance.

It is more than obvious that the scribes and Pharisees were not the least interested in seeing true justice executed.

That doesn't seem unreasonable at all, given there's no trap without an effort to coax something from Christ that is more important to them than the offense.

The accusers committed a colossal tactical blunder. Their charge itself contained information sufficient to expose their hypocrisy. The scribes and Pharisees emphatically declared that the poor woman had been caught “in the very act.” That is significant. When the Jewish leaders decided to be so specific, “in the very act,” they acknowledged an important point: they knew the identity of the male participant! What is the significance of that? Well, it is this: the Old Testament code demanded that both the adulteress and the adulterer be subjected to the same penalty (see Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22).

It does. But are you suggesting that had the man broken free and run away that the woman would be free? I don't believe that's a reasonable reading of the law. It has the same problem I described above.

Where, then, was the man?

I don't know. We never get to that. We never get to potential witnesses. Christ, given authority to judge, does something else. I've been speaking to the why of that.

The thrust of Christ’s statement—“He that is without sin . . .”—was this: “None of you is in a position to stone this woman, for you have disregarded the very law you profess to honor. It is a travesty.”

He doesn't say a thing about the law. He could have. But he doesn't. He raises a new standard for anyone who would want to consider standing in judgment over the woman. He didn't have to do that to defeat the legal claim.

In this commentary, the author puts forth the supposition that the scribes and Pharisees were so intent in springing their trap that they didn't realize that they themselves were violating the commandment until Jesus spoke the words "he that is without sin".

It doesn't follow, unless they lacked basic knowledge of the process, in which case they aren't in a position to form or lay a trap for someone rooted in that very thing.

That would answer your objections about my narrative having "legalists who don't know simple, foundational necessaries".

I don't find that to be the case, supra. But I appreciate your setting out your thinking in the matter and doing so civilly. Kudos for that. It gives me a clearer understanding of your thinking and I count that a good thing.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Only if they met the demands of the law, which is rather what you and yours are arguing for and what you appear to be saying could not happen, which is an argument against your saying her death would be inevitable.

You seem to have forgotten that you said Jesus should/could have instructed the scribes and Pharisees in how to meet the demands of the Law in order to put the woman to death so justice could be served.

Now Jesus, knowing her guilt, could have provided them with the route by which the law would be satisfied

See, you just did it again.

Rather, I noted that to defeat the aim of the law (justice) with the letter of the law is to work an injury to its point, which is to serve justice, not itself.

You are declaring that the aim of the law is justice, but that idea is not found anywhere in scripture.
That seems to be a fundamental error on your part.

I find the arguments I've been presented problematic on a number of fronts and I've noted that. I think there's another and better explanation and I've begun to work through what that is...though it's a consideration in progress. Some things are fairly clear to me on the point and some I'm still mulling.

My arguments are a result of studying the Old Testament laws and applying the principle of Occam's razor to the problem.
Please continue to work through a better explanation of the events and see what you come up with.

He doesn't say a thing about the law. He could have. But he doesn't. He raises a new standard for anyone who would want to consider standing in judgment over the woman. He didn't have to do that to defeat the legal claim.

All of the commentaries that refer to Leviticus 20:10 that I am aware of are assuming that Jesus is judging the guilt of the scribes and Pharisees by the very commandment that they are using to judge the guilt of the woman caught in adultery.
That would involve Jesus applying the very principle about judgment that He has stated:

Matthew 7:2 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.​

Since the commandment they are using to judge that the woman is to be stoned to death is the same commandment that states that the man is to be put to death, they are just as guilty for violating that very commandment as the woman is.

It doesn't follow, unless they lacked basic knowledge of the process, in which case they aren't in a position to form or lay a trap for someone rooted in that very thing.

Since they weren't the Sanhedrin, they lacked experiential knowledge of the process.
Since they were scribes and Pharisees who relied on breaking up the commandments into sound bites that they could make lengthy comments about, they were not in any position to lay a trap on someone who knew the complete commandment.
It becomes fairly simple to identify the problems when you understand the Jewish culture during the time of Jesus' ministry.

I appreciate your setting out your thinking in the matter and doing so civilly. Kudos for that. It gives me a clearer understanding of your thinking and I count that a good thing.

There is always something new to learn from civilized discussion about disagreements.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Have you spent any time at all trying to figure out why the capital offenses listed in the Torah were deemed to be worthy of death?
I have.


Yes, in this example the number of people that would even consider working on the Sabbath day was reduced.

Numbers 15:32-36 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.​

You seem to be ignoring the FACT that a proper application of the death penalty will drastically lower the number of people who would risk committing a capital offense in the first place.
This has been proven historically:

Vlad the Impaler To ensure absolute loyalty and submission among his people Dracula employed a terror tactic he witnessed in captivity, public execution using a foul tactic; Impalement. Although his methods were highly unnecessary they did their job more than well, there was absolutely no crime in Transylvania and no one dared speak out about him.

​

I have compared the effectiveness of the Law that God gave with the ineffectiveness of the American legal system.
You seem to want an ineffective system instead of an effective system.
That is unhinged.

Quite fitting that you should link to something about Vlad the Impaler. Like most legalist's there's a lack of rationale and empathy which is sadly ironic. You probably think that a system as what JR suggests would practically eradicate crime within a day or so right?

:doh: X 10,000000000.

:rain:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Quite fitting that you should link to something about Vlad the Impaler.

Isn't it amazing how history can prove that the death penalty swiftly and publicly executed will deter criminals from committing capital offenses?
That really defeats the arguments provided by the leftists that claim that the death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes.

:idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Isn't it amazing how history can prove that the death penalty swiftly and publicly executed will deter criminals from committing capital offenses?
That really defeats the arguments provided by the leftists that claim that the death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes.

:idunno:

So, you are as ignorant and pie in the sky as JR then to make such silly prognostications then. "Good to know".

(more face palms)

 

[Arthur Brain]

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?

As is par for the course, the real unhinged aka the mindless legalist's and hardcore zealots will simply make bizarre claims as to how their system would somehow and miraculously make crime disappear overnight!

:roses:

It's cringe worthy on multiple levels: The sheer asininity, the ignorance, the lack of anything resembling humanity etc etc...

 

[eider]

Have you spent any time at all trying to figure out why the capital offenses listed in the Torah were deemed to be worthy of death?
I have.


Yes, in this example the number of people that would even consider working on the Sabbath day was reduced.

Numbers 15:32-36 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.​

You seem to be ignoring the FACT that a proper application of the death penalty will drastically lower the number of people who would risk committing a capital offense in the first place.
This has been proven historically:

Vlad the Impaler To ensure absolute loyalty and submission among his people Dracula employed a terror tactic he witnessed in captivity, public execution using a foul tactic; Impalement. Although his methods were highly unnecessary they did their job more than well, there was absolutely no crime in Transylvania and no one dared speak out about him.

​

I have compared the effectiveness of the Law that God gave with the ineffectiveness of the American legal system.
You seem to want an ineffective system instead of an effective system.
That is unhinged.

There you are, glued, chained, bolted and screwed down to just a few of the old laws of the Old Testament, just a few of them, wishing to totally ignore hundreds of the others whilst clinging to about twenty that you've become fanatical about. And please don't hide behind the sacrificial laws because Jesus excluded those himself, already. There are 507 laws for your scrutiny, and you can start by adapting the poor laws to this modern World.

You seem to be in a Limbo between Christianity and the old Israelite laws, frankly........

Do you honestly think that Jesus would wish to have anything to do with your theocratic world? You do realise that you would be executing and beating people in almost the same way as fanatical Muslims, don't you ?

And you think that 'the left' is unhinged........ Wow!

 

[eider]

Luke 24:25-27 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.​

Snatched out of context, a lone one liner converted to your own strange idea of what Christianity would really be like....... :idunno:

 

[eider]

As is par for the course, the real unhinged aka the mindless legalist's and hardcore zealots will simply make bizarre claims as to how their system would somehow and miraculously make crime disappear overnight!

:roses:

It's cringe worthy on multiple levels: The sheer asininity, the ignorance, the lack of anything resembling humanity etc etc...

This^^^^
I wonder what positions such people imagine that they would hold in their cherry-picked Old Testament World?
Some might actually imagine that they would make ideal Judges, hearing cases and delivering verdicts and sentences......... a kind of travelling 'Judge Dread' or something?

The Jesus message seems to be tossed aside in some crazed fanaticism for the old times of the Judges, and those corrupt Kings that thought it was OK to break so many of their own laws......... and all that's left is something which looks like Sharia Law.

On another forum somebody posted up a picture of a group of vigilantes wearing high-viz jackets with 'Sharia' written on them. These people explained that they would stop 'alcohol in public places', 'women in short-skirts 'n' high-heels', 'prostitution', 'Pop music', etc etc........ and we know how Sharia law would sentence thieves, fraudsters, adulterers, manslaughterers, murders etc........ what is the difference between that lot and some of the members here?

It looks similar to me.... :idunno:

 

[Town Heretic]

You seem to have forgotten that you said Jesus should/could have instructed the scribes and Pharisees in how to meet the demands of the Law in order to put the woman to death so justice could be served.

Not at all. If, as some of you suggest, the witnesses were absent, if the judges were not present, etc., then the outcome wouldn't necessarily be her death, only instruction in the law and the insufficiency of the trap.

But he didn't do that. He did something different. I've spoken to why I believe that happened and some of what I believe it meant.

You are declaring that the aim of the law is justice, but that idea is not found anywhere in scripture.

There are always two masters. A law will serve justice or injustice. Which do you imagine God's law serves? And why would anyone need to write that down?

Else, I've said more than that about the law. As to punishment, the aim of the law is justice prima facie, supra.

That seems to be a fundamental error on your part.

I believe it seems or seemed that to you, but it wasn't and isn't for the reason given.

My arguments are a result of studying the Old Testament laws and applying the principle of Occam's razor to the problem.

Some people who study the stars think they tell our future. And no, your position is the needlessly complicated one. The simplest truth for why Christ doesn't speak to the legality of the question, why he would refrain from unmaking the trap by pointing out the obvious flaws in it is that he doesn't mean to. He means something else. I'm interested in that something else.

All of the commentaries that refer to Leviticus 20:10 that I am aware of are assuming that Jesus is judging the guilt of the scribes and Pharisees by the very commandment that they are using to judge the guilt of the woman caught in adultery.

You should post a few of them. I often do and find the writing informative.

Since the commandment they are using to judge that the woman is to be stoned to death is the same commandment that states that the man is to be put to death, they are just as guilty for violating that very commandment as the woman is.

They invite a similar harsh judgement, to be sure.

Since they weren't the Sanhedrin, they lacked experiential knowledge of the process.

Then they knew they lacked the means to test Jesus. You're suggesting that men without training in the law thought to "trap" Jesus using the thing they lacked sufficient knowledge of to do so. That's counterintuitive. Also, you have to assume people of education wouldn't understand a fairly obvious and practiced truth. I'm betting that adultery wasn't a thing that happened once in a generation and that the foundational requirements really weren't much of a mystery to interested laymen.

There is always something new to learn from civilized discussion about disagreements.

Now that I agree with, though eventually it returns to the fact that most people here have read, considered, and decided a thing, so past a point it becomes an understanding that cannot be resolved on this side of the veil.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Quite fitting that you should link to something about Vlad the Impaler. Like most legalist's there's a lack of rationale and empathy which is sadly ironic. You probably think that a system as what JR suggests would practically eradicate crime within a day or so right?

:doh: X 10,000000000.

:rain:

See a reference to Vlad reminded me of one of my college classes where we were discussing law and justice. The teacher mentioned the two cities with the lowest crime rates in modern history, you could walk these city streets at night and leave your doors unlocked with little fear of assault by 'criminals'. Both had swift justice needing only one or two witnesses and both embraced the death penalty, in fact, were well known for it.

They were Belin at the height of Nazi Germany and Moscow at the height of Soviet Russia. When asked if we would have liked to live there, we all said no.

 

[JudgeRightly]

See a reference to Vlad reminded me of one of my college classes where we were discussing law and justice. The teacher mentioned the two cities with the lowest crime rates in modern history, you could walk these city streets at night and leave your doors unlocked with little fear of assault by 'criminals'. Both had swift justice needing only one or two witnesses and both embraced the death penalty, in fact, were well known for it.

They were Belin at the height of Nazi Germany and Moscow at the height of Soviet Russia. When asked if we would have liked to live there, we all said no.

Correlation does not equal causation. Poisoning the well much?

Having a low crime rate due to swift punishment for crimes is not a cause of wicked governments.

Neither does wicked governments having a death penalty and/or swift punishments mean that such punishments are wrong.

 

[genuineoriginal]

There you are, glued, chained, bolted and screwed down to just a few of the old laws of the Old Testament, just a few of them, wishing to totally ignore hundreds of the others whilst clinging to about twenty that you've become fanatical about.

You have no clue how wrong you are.

You seem to be in a Limbo between Christianity and the old Israelite laws, frankly........

I follow the words of Paul the Apostle:

Acts 24:14-15 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.​

Do you honestly think that Jesus would wish to have anything to do with your theocratic world?

Most Christians will tell you that Jesus is God.
Since God gave the Law in the Torah.
Jesus has no qualms with the Law written in the Torah.

When Jesus returns to earth, He will rule the nations with a rod of iron.
Jesus will be enforcing the Law of God from the Torah.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Snatched out of context, a lone one liner converted to your own strange idea of what Christianity would really be like....... :idunno:

Christianity is not constrained to your narrow ideas of what Christianity is supposed to be in a non-Christian world.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You are declaring that the aim of the law is justice, but that idea is not found anywhere in scripture.
That seems to be a fundamental error on your part.

There are always two masters. A law will serve justice or injustice. Which do you imagine God's law serves?

The Law given by God is for wisdom, understanding, and righteousness, the aim was not justice.

And why would anyone need to write that down?

It was written down so there wouldn't be any mistake.

Deuteronomy 4:5-8 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? 8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?​

As to punishment, the aim of the law is justice prima facie, supra.

The aim of the punishment in the law is not justice, it is to get rid of evil from the society.

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.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm betting that adultery wasn't a thing that happened once in a generation and that the foundational requirements really weren't much of a mystery to interested laymen.

Carrying out the death penalty by stoning for adultery may have never happened.

Adultery Laws of adultery continued to be developed in talmudic times. The unfaithful wife was dealt with extensively in a talmudic tractate called Sotah (the faithless wife). Before the penalty of death could be administered, the rabbis stated in the Talmud, a number of strict requirements needed to be met, including such necessities as the crime having to have occurred before two valid witnesses and a warning that must be given to the couple concerning the punishment for the crime in very specific terms. The probability of carrying out the death penalty was, therefore, quite remote

​

It is possible that the law to put the adulterer to death was intended to highlight how serious an offense adultery was instead of being a penalty that would be carried out.

Stoning Adulterers Comparisons between Leviticus and Deuteronomy and other ancient Near Eastern law codes written around the same time suggest they are all of the same genre. One feature of such codes is seemingly harsh penalties. In old Babylonian law, the hand that assaults was severed; a man who kissed another’s wife was to have his lips cut off; a person who stole bees was to be stung by bees; a man who raped another’s wife would be sentenced to having his own wife or daughter raped; a negligent builder whose house collapsed and killed another’s son would be sentenced to having his own son killed, and so on. Raymond Westbrook, an expert on the ancient Near East, notes that these prescribed punishments are both inconsistent with the actual legal practice known to have occurred in these cultures and are often internally inconsistent. He notes, “some law codes impose physical punishments and others payments for the same offenses, while some codes have a mixture of the two.” The contradiction is only apparent because, “in high- lighting one or the other alternative, the codes are making a statement as to their view of the gravity of the offence.” He argues that the laws “reflect the scribal compilers’ concern for perfect symmetry and delicious irony rather than the pragmatic experience of the law courts.” Westbrook concludes that the method used in ancient Near Eastern legal texts was “to set out principles by the use of often extreme examples.” From early rabbinical times, commentators have noted that the Torah appears to operate with the same assumption. For example, Exodus 21:29–32 addresses a case where if an ox gored another person to death due to negligence on the part of the owner, “the owner also must be put to death,” but the very next verse states that “if payment is demanded of him, he may ransom his life by paying whatever is demanded.” The text literally demanded a person be put to death but assumed the punishment would be substituted for a fine set by the courts. Not only is ransoming implicitly assumed in many of the Old Testament laws about homicide, but reading the text this way explains many features of the text that otherwise appear inexplicable. Gordon Wenham observes that “according to Deut xix19 false witnesses were punished with the punishment the accused would have suffered if substantiated,” that is, the penalty for falsely accusing a woman of adultery was not execution, but an unspecified punishment alongside a monetary fine. Wenham concludes that a monetary substitution must have been envisaged in this text if it was to be read as coherent and consistent. The genre of the passages, in light of the common ancient Near Eastern legal practices and customs, suggests that most capital sanctions functioned as a kind of rhetorical denunciation, which expressed, in vivid form, a moral ideal. Further, in practice, a ransom was paid and the punishment was not literally carried out; it was not statute law demanding the stoning of adulterers.

​

 

[Stripe]

I will follow what the LORD said about this subject:

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Gen.9:6).​

Should we just ignore what the LORD said, The Barbarian?

Or, "And Jesus said (to the woman who He knew to be guilty and who's life was then forfeit under the law)
"Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."

Jerry offers the law.

Town thinks the law doesn't apply.

To remain consistent, Town would have to punish murderers by telling them to "go and sin no more."

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk