The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[Arthur Brain]

Hey JR. I thought I was pretty clear on the point, but though I notice my name was somewhere in the middle of that sprawling bit, I'm just not going to bother to weed through that much to other people to get to it. It's a formatting pain among other considerations.

If you want to talk to me talk to me. If you're going to bury it in the middle of things I'm going to leave it on the vine. Your choice. So if you're determined to do that don't take my silence as assent.

:e4e:

Why he does it is anyone's guess. Chances are he'll go :baby: for simply asking him to do what near enough everyone else does here where it comes to long responses and just address each person individually. Why he thinks people should wade through LOTR is again, anyone's guess.

:freak:

 

[Stripe]

Rather, if you're going to claim that he did you have to offer proof that isn't in the narrative.

Have I asserted that He did?

Remember how I said "might have," which you pretended meant "could have"?

That is, JR answered ider's question on where Christ endorsed the DP with that bit and I noted that his answer brings up an important problem, the conviction of the innocent. For a bit the conversation was around that particular. At some point in it I noted that you don't require DNA evidence from people who can't provide it, even though DNA evidence is superior to what people think they know through inference or eye witness. Then the whole conversation took on its own life, as happens in conversations. Especially when you're having the same one with three or more people.

And yet your response to Jerry really happened. It's right there. He offered a scriptural defense of the DP, you offered an "or" followed by "he without sin."

Neither of those are true for the reasons offered prior. If I note that a legal trap is set before Christ and he doesn't respond to the nature of that trap, but propounds a different standard, all I'm really doing is noting the fact. That fact has logical inference. Neither noting that fact nor setting out a reasoned proffer about the actual response are arguments from silence.

Except you don't simply "note the fact." You note the fact and then insist He did not present the law. He might well have. You do not have enough information to insist otherwise. Classic argument from silence.

Christ, presented with the trap, chose to do something other than respond on the point of law that would easily dismiss it and take the trap as it was offered. What he actually did was important.

Argument from silence and straw man. He might well have presented the law and the words He spoke were important.

I forget you're a foreigner from time to time, but aren't you a native speaker with at least a little formal education? Discourse is written or oral communication. "It" is a pronoun taking the place of the legal discussion. "Those present" would be the mob. So it means the legal conversation that the mob set before him didn't enter into his communication to them, where he set a different standard.

Even the smartest of us can't read minds. And I'm not a foreigner, racist.

There was more than one group of people at the scene.

And the law might well have been presented. Every time you say it wasn't is a perpetuation of the argument from silence.

If you want a solid argument, cut those out.

He literally did. He said that the one without sin could throw the first stone. That's an actual straw man because you advance your argument, that it isn't a legal standard, on the assumption that I have said it was, which I didn't.

That was an actual question. What legal standard did He introduce if not "he without sin."

You're quoting what you believe it necessitates. And your understanding is contrary to the function of that law. To say bring both parties for judgement is not the same as saying "Because if you only bring one the one can't be tried."

The law says "both." That means "both," necessarily. You don't get to say "one."

This shows you don't understand the law or what it's for.

It's obviously not the same to compare this situation to one murderer from a group of three being caught. The "both" condition applies uniquely to adultery, for obvious reasons. Do you need them spelled out? The story says she was caught in the act. Where was the man? That they did not bring both is an obvious and egregious flaunting of the law. Pointing it out is not a frivolous appeal to a "technicality."

You are not justified in ignoring this aspect of the case.

And if that had been the case the easy dismissal by Jesus in support of business as usual would have been to note it.

He didn't do that.

Argument from silence. He might have.

And even if He didn't, the law says what it says. You are not justified in ignoring it.

I reject your reasoning. If you want to personalize it that's you. And I think you've demonstrated over the course of your posting that to you it's the same thing and that is a problem for you.

Oh, so you accuse us of turning Jesus into a lawyer, but we're not allowed to take it personally and we're to blame when we deny your ridiculous accusations.

If you can't see how blatantly insane you are, you're too far gone for there to be any hope of a sensible discussion.

Muppet.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

Have I asserted that He did?

Remember how I said "might have," which you pretended meant "could have"?

And yet your response to Jerry really happened. It's right there. He offered a scriptural defense of the DP, you offered an "or" followed by "he without sin."


Except you don't simply "note the fact." You note the fact and then insist He did not present the law. He might well have. You do not have enough information to insist otherwise. Classic argument from silence.

Argument from silence and straw man. He might well have presented the law and the words He spoke were important.

Even the smartest of us can't read minds. And I'm not a foreigner, racist.

There was more than one group of people at the scene.

And the law might well have been presented. Every time you say it wasn't is a perpetuation of the argument from silence.

If you want a solid argument, cut those out.

That was an actual question. What legal standard did He introduce if not "he without sin."



The law says "both." That means "both," necessarily. You don't get to say "one."

This shows you don't understand the law or what it's for.

It's obviously not the same to compare this situation to one murderer from a group of three being caught. The "both" condition applies uniquely to adultery, for obvious reasons. Do you need them spelled out? The story says she was caught in the act. Where was the man? That they did not bring both is an obvious and egregious flaunting of the law. Pointing it out is not a frivolous appeal to a "technicality."

You are bound not justified in ignoring this aspect of the case.



Argument from silence. He might have.

And even if He didn't, the law says what it says. You are not justified in ignoring it.

Oh, so you accuse us of turning Jesus into a lawyer, but we're not allowed to take it personally and we're to blame when we deny your ridiculous accusations.

If you can't see how blatantly insane you are, you're too far gone for there to be any hope of a sensible discussion.

Muppet.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You're calling TH blatantly insane and a muppet?

 

[Town Heretic]

You're calling TH blatantly insane and a muppet?

He's too tied up in emotional nonsense and baggage. I'm cutting him free. It's not even worth the effort at correcting the incessant distortion. If anyone is foolish enough to swallow his shtick I'm going to have to be okay with like finding like and leave it at that.

How you doin?

 

[Stripe]

He's too tied up in emotional nonsense and baggage. I'm cutting him free. It's not even worth the effort at correcting the incessant distortion. If anyone is foolish enough to swallow his shtick I'm going to have to be okay with like finding like and leave it at that.

How you doin?

Bye. :loser:

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

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[glorydaz]

The law says "both." That means "both," necessarily. You don't get to say "one."

This shows you don't understand the law or what it's for.

It's obviously not the same to compare this situation to one murderer from a group of three being caught. The "both" condition applies uniquely to adultery, for obvious reasons. Do you need them spelled out? The story says she was caught in the act. Where was the man? That they did not bring both is an obvious and egregious flaunting of the law. Pointing it out is not a frivolous appeal to a "technicality."

You are not justified in ignoring this aspect of the case.

Exactly, especially considering it's the main point. No amount of talking around it will change it.

Good job, Stripe. :thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

He's too tied up in emotional nonsense and baggage. I'm cutting him free. It's not even worth the effort at correcting the incessant distortion. If anyone is foolish enough to swallow his shtick I'm going to have to be okay with like finding like and leave it at that.

How you doin?

Pretty much all you can do and I'm careful as to whatever I swallow if not so much what I eat...

 

[Stripe]

Now, let's continue dismantling this prattle:

No, it isn't. It would make the law the sort of thing Jesus criticized in the religious leaders of the day, by robbing it of justice, making it a slave to form. Or, as I've written before, the law serves justice. To approach it the other way around is to make the same mistake the priests made about the wheat his apostles ate.

We have examples of Jesus criticizing legalists. He doesn't disestablish the law. Watch:

Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying: “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”

He answered and said to them: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying: ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and: ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say: Whoever says to his father or mother whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God — then he need not honor his father or mother. Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.

Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them: "Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”

Then His disciples came and said to Him: “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?”

But He answered and said: “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”

Then Peter answered and said to Him: “Explain this parable to us.”

So Jesus said: “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”
Matthew 15:1-20 NKJV​

So to put it in the context of this conversation, I uphold the law, which says "both," while you deny the applicability of the law.

Which of us falls into the same category as the hypocrite?

See, I told you the so what in the line you don't appear to understand.

What don't I understand now?

The law is for men[,] who don't have his knowledge, the knowledge of her guilt. The law provided them a means to arrive at judgement and to carry it out. Christ understood what the law was aimed to discover and he understood it perfectly, without the process of law.

1. The men who brought the woman knew of her guilt.
2. You're equivocating over the "men" in "the law is for men." There's supposed to be a comma where I placed it, because no man has His knowledge. But then you give a dependent clause that indicates the men are those who brought the woman (who did know she was guilty).
3. The law provided them with a "means," but they didn't follow the law.
4. Jesus understood the law and did not disestablish it.

So your "the law is for men" does nothing to bolster your claim that the word of the law, ie, "both," is a mere technicality.

So you need to pay attention. I'd just told you the answer. You either can't or won't understand that, which is why I leave off worrying with some questions, like that one.

No, this was a separate question.

You say "the procedure is meant to serve justice." I'm assuming that means something. So "both" is part of the "procedure." Is "both" meant to serve justice?

Note how that is a yes or no question.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

Pretty much all you can do and I'm careful as to whatever I swallow if not so much what I eat...

There's a lot of gnat straining going on around here. :think: Maybe it's good protein, but it's not much of a meal.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hey JR. I thought I was pretty clear on the point, but though I notice my name was somewhere in the middle of that sprawling bit, I'm just not going to bother to weed through that much to other people to get to it. It's a formatting pain among other considerations.

If you want to talk to me talk to me. If you're going to bury it in the middle of things I'm going to leave it on the vine. Your choice. So if you're determined to do that don't take my silence as assent.

:e4e:

Sounds like you're just being lazy.

It's not like I mixed multiple posts of yours up with AB's and Eider's. If I had, I could understand. But I didn't.

Again, it's not my problem if you can't separate out my replies to you from my replies to other people.

I multiquote because it's easier for me to catch up in the conversation that way without having to wait 45 seconds after each post.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Sounds like you're just being lazy.

It's not like I mixed multiple posts of yours up with AB's and Eider's. If I had, I could understand. But I didn't.

Again, it's not my problem if you can't separate out my replies to you from my replies to other people.

I multiquote because it's easier for me to catch up in the conversation that way without having to wait 45 seconds after each post.

It looks as if TH loves to see his name up in lights, so to say. :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Sounds like you're just being lazy.

That's funny. I'll tell you why at the end, though I hope you'll see it before then (either).

It's not like I mixed multiple posts of yours up with AB's and Eider's. If I had, I could understand. But I didn't.

What it's like is this: I hit reply with quote and there's this really, really long thing with only your words on it, no reference to who. For the who I have to scroll up and go over lines of dialogue then go back and find it before I can start to respond. That's a pain in the neck when you're aiming comments to other people both before and after me.

It looks like:

:deadhorse:

I'm pretty sure we've agreed and established He does. So you can stop using the "if" word here.



You mean, "why strive to be perfect, even if perfection is unattainable?"

Because righteousness is a worthy goal. If a system is inherently corrupt, and a better alternative is available, then one should stop using the corrupt system and switch to using the better system.



God would rather have justice executed swiftly, than risk a criminal dragging out the process unnecessarily.



Saying it isn't inherently broken doesn't make it so.

I have shown you how it is, in that it regularly acquits criminals who should have been punished.



I don't understand the reference...



A system that regularly acquits murderers IS useless, because it is unable to punish those who deserve to be punished.

To use an example I saw recently (if not on this thread, but on another thread on TOL), if I have a hard drive that has a damaged sector and I'm unable to repair it, then I consider the whole drive to be completely useless, even though the rest of the parts might be working fine.

If I have a bowl of soup, and someone puts rat poison in it, the entire bowl of soup is now inedible.

If I have a parachute that has a hole it, then that entire parachute is useless (until it can be fixed, if it can).

In the same way, if you a system that is supposed to bring justice to criminals, and yet regularly acquits criminals for various reasons, then the system is broken, and should not be used.



Neither am I. I'm a theonomist, which means that I think that man's laws should be a reflection of God's laws.



So if you oppose such a position, in that you oppose punishing the innocent for crimes they didn't commit, then why do you support the current system, which punishes innocent people for crimes they did not commit?



Not my problem.



Sure it would.

If we (America) implemented the death penalty as the punishment for capital crimes, as well as corporal punishment and restitution, at 0600 EST, and put to death all inmates on death row, and started trying, convicting, and punishing criminals according to their crimes, the crime rate would drop to nearly 0% by the next morning.

Why? Because everyone would be deterred by the idea of paying restitution, being flogged, or being executed because they broke the law, and they would realize that now they can no longer commit a crime and get away with it (which is the case currently, because the current system, while able to catch criminals, is quite often unable to actually punish them for their crime due to various reasons).



Sure I do. I assert that the one denying reality here is you, because you deny that God knows justice better than anyone else.



I think prison isn't enough of a deterrent for crime, just as time-out isn't enough of a punishment for children. But that's another topic for another thread.



No, they were arguments based on reality.

I'd appreciate it if you could at least humor me and address them.

· Appellate judges have a tendency to reverse convictions to demonstrate their own importance.

Is is not a fact that judges have a tendency to reverse convictions when appeals are made?

· A speedy trial and swift sentence are critical to the deterrence of crime.

In what way or ways is this not true?

· The delays inherent in an appellate system destroy the deterrent effect of swift justice.

In what way or ways is this not true?

· Criminals favor having an appeal process, which encourages crime.

Is this not true? If not, why?

· Appeals delay punishment and extend the suffering of the victim’s family.

Do appeals not delay punishment? Do they not extend the suffering of the victim's family?

· An appellate option makes it more difficult for criminals to respect the authority of a judge.

If a criminal knows he can appeal his case, and perhaps get a reversal, how can he possibly respect the authority?

· Appeals enable criminals to shop for gullible judges.

This goes back to the first point, if a judge feels like it would boost his reputation to overturn an earlier conviction, then criminals can use that to their advantage and escape punishment.

· Appeals increase crime; denying appeals reduces crime, the caseload, and thus, judicial errors.

If you have a bigger caseload, more resources are used up trying to punish criminals. A smaller caseload frees up those resources, and so fewer errors will be made.



In my system, they would have never been convicted in the first place. So what's your point?



Nope. They wouldn't have been convicted in the first place. :deadhorse:



And what's available currently is being used inefficiently, to the point where the authorities are unable to do what they're supposed to.



We agree. But how much more evidence can initially be brought to light if the system can be used far more efficiently?



Agreed, but even less so in God's system.



Nope, not at all.

A speedy trial (which right doesn't belong to the criminal, but to the people) where two or three witnesses (God's standard; not limited to "eyewitnesses") are brought against the accused (who, while guilty as soon as they commit a crime, is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court) deters criminals from committing crimes because it instills the fear of being caught and punished into them (a righteous man does not fear a righteous government, but a wicked man does; today there is no fear of the authorities, and cities have become warzones).



You keep asserting this, but have not provided any good reasoning as to why your standard is better than God's (if you have, please point me to the post where you did, so that I may address it).

If God originally required two or three witnesses for all crimes committed, regardless of their severity, and He never changed that requirement, what makes you think that absolute proof is necessary today? Why would forensics mean that the standard has changed? It just means that better evidence would be available to be used in court against a criminal, and since two or three witnesses is enough to convict (according to God), then "absolute proof" is unnecessary. More below.



Accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. If a person cannot be proven guilty based on two or three witnesses, then they cannot be punished for a crime.

The judge examines the evidence and questions the accused directly. If the accused maintains that he is innocent, and the evidence fits his defence, then it's likely that he's innocent, and he would not be charged with a crime.

However, if he maintains that he is innocent, yet the two or three witnesses do not fit his defence, then it's likely that he's lying, which is an indicator of guilt (to at least some extent).

There's very little room for error at all, yet still enough give to prevent what you keep saying will happen in my system.



The term is "city of refuge." It's an actual city, not a farm.

And are you asserting that George couldn't take him?



I'm asking to see if you know what it is. Do you know?



And what should the penalty be, in your opinion?

See above.

Again, I'm asking to find out if you know what the Biblical death penalty is. Do you know? If not, I recommend you find out.



Duh.

Yet both are capital crimes.



:AMR:



I think that all are equal under the law.



Correlation does not equal causation.

You of all people should know that.

Was Vlad a wicked man? Most likely. Were his methods of execution unecessarily violent? Sure.

Is his swift punishment of criminals



Nope. You did. Here's where:



Emphasis mine.

Had you said "two would usually be enough" or even "two would be enough most of the time," I wouldn't have pointed out your error. But you said "two would be enough." Which is not the same as "two or three witnesses."

The Bible says "two or three," which means that the evidence should be weighed each case, to determine whether only two witnesses are necessary and enough, or if three are necessary, due to insufficient evidence if only two.



Even I at least skim through the posts in the threads that I'm subscribed to, to see if there's anything that needs to be addressed.



An admission is appropriate, especially since you're at fault of not paying attention to what has been said multiple times on this thread.

When you don't pay attention to a conversation, you WILL miss important points that are made.

Intentionally ignoring those points, especially after being called out on missing them, is just bad form.



How do you know? You can't assert that with any certainty because you might have missed a point that I or someone else was building on in another post that WAS NOT addressed to you, which you admit you don't pay attention to.



Christ was evading a trap set by people who wanted to trap Him, which, if triggered, would have brought Him into premature conflict with the Roman government, while still upholding the law.

The woman was not in any danger of being executed, because the Scribes and Pharisees did not bring BOTH her and her supposed lover before the Sanhedrin. Instead, they brought just the adulteress before Jesus, who had no authority (yes, He's God, but while on Earth, He subjected Himself to the government) to condemn or acquit any criminal.



Therefore... Something... :idunno:



Considering that that is still my position whether he is or is not a Christian... Therefore my position has not changed. I would still love a friend request from Obama, which would still give me a chance to talk about where he'll exist for all of eternity.

:AMR:



:AMR:



Christ knew that the woman couldn't be executed under the law because only she had been brought, instead of BOTH her and her supposed lover.

Had both been brought, they might have had a case. But you think it's a technicality she got off on...



I have shown using scripture that "witness" means more than just "eyewitness."

But we know your opinions about what scripture says.



Yes, you did.

Here is where you did.





No, it makes him capable of disarming a trap made by lawyers which were designed to bring him into a premature conflict with the Roman government.



Well we know how long that lasted.



Since everything I have said so far comes from God's word, which contains HIS LAW, not my ideas of it, yes, yes you are calling HIS LAW 'Sharia law.'



:darwinism:



Says the one who's can't even provide any semblance of a criminal code.

Again, why should I listen to what you have to say about what the laws should be when you don't even know yourself?



No. I'd say about 90-99% of the population has become or is in the process of becoming "unhinged." And the only way to "re-hinge" them is to re-establish laws that reflect God's laws.



Begging the question. Jesus never repealed any of the laws given in the OT, He only corrected what people had turned them into.



Those who are adults, in other words, know the difference between right and wrong, and who have resisted correction, yes. If you're referring to the verse I'm thinking you're thinking of, then I would like to point out that the word used that has been translated as "child(ren)" means "young man."



I think it would be a world void or almost void of people who would commit those crimes.



You can't "execute" a crime...



Yes. Because the death penalty IS a deterrent.



Because you say so?

No, criminals would be deterred from committing those crimes because they would fear being caught, tried, and publicly put to death.



Sure it would.



Because you apparently know Jesus better than Christians do. Isn't that right?



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Again with this nonsense.

Theocracy is rule by God.

Monarchy is rule by one man.

I'm a monarchist, I want a rule by one man.

I believe the word you're looking for is "theonomy," which is the advocation that man's laws should reflect God's laws.



The police. Duh atrol: :dunce:



Right, because you've given us better laws for us to live by. NOT! :mock:



What other laws should we adhere to? :think:

You haven't really supplied any.



"Theonomy" :think:



:deadhorse:



Plenty of fallacies in this statement.



And you think God is unhinged. WOW!

That's what you're expecting the guy somewhere in the center to work around.

Again, it's not my problem if you can't separate out my replies to you from my replies to other people.

Sure it is. First, because you're making a needlessly enormous post that isn't necessary and is actually something we're not supposed to do. Literally not supposed to do. Second, it's your problem if you want a conversation instead of a blog, because at least one of the people you take time to answer isn't going to read or respond to it (that would be me) being stuck in the middle of that reference free enormity.

It's sometimes a struggle to manage even in one to ones where the subject and points are numerous.

I multiquote because it's easier for me to catch up in the conversation that way without having to wait 45 seconds after each post.

See, that sounds lazy (in case you didn't work through it). I've sometimes compiled a couple of people. Even more, but the way to do it without leaving a gigantic footprint that isn't reasonable to leave for the middle guy is to make it all very short OR don't respond to more than two people, so the line of demarcation is easy on everyone. One person at a time is better. A couple if it won't end in a giant post and you go from one the the other and not back and forth.

Otherwise you're acting contrary to the rules around here without regard to that, inviting dismissal by participants, making it less likely anyone other than the people directly involved will read it, and being inconsiderate of those you're directly responding to (see: the enormous repost of your bit without marks that distinguish who any part of it is made to).

I'm not going to wade through the above and figure out where I come in and out and you shouldn't ask me to. So I won't and you're wasting a lot of time on a response that no one will likely read who isn't invested in the effort.

:e4e:

 

[Stripe]

:spam:

 

[Town Heretic]

It looks as if TH loves to see his name up in lights, so to say. :chuckle:

You're like the gold standard for pointless. lain:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You're like the gold standard for pointless. lain:

I really appreciate your observations. I really do. I was expecting the 'Silver standard,' however, you gave me the gold. :cigar:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You're like the gold standard for pointless.

I gave you a 'Pos-rep' because you gave me your 'GOLD standard award.' Don't get used to it. Consider it an anomaly. lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sounds like you're just being lazy.

It's not like I mixed multiple posts of yours up with AB's and Eider's. If I had, I could understand. But I didn't.

Again, it's not my problem if you can't separate out my replies to you from my replies to other people.

I multiquote because it's easier for me to catch up in the conversation that way without having to wait 45 seconds after each post.

Um, no JR, that would be you. It's not a problem for anyone else to separate long responses and catch up with conversations. TH has demonstrated just how gigantic your post/blocks are and it's completely unnecessary and against forum rules to have posts of that enormitude, not that you seem to have any regard or consideration for that. The only reason I responded is because I was the first in that humongous block and even then it was a chew on scrolling up and down the thing. If I'd been in the middle of that you'd have had similar response as you got from TH. Why you think people should have to wade through a gargantuan wall of text is anyone's guess but if you keep doing it you'll effectively just be posting to yourself.

 

[genuineoriginal]

either the law is just or it is unjust. The law is God's therefore it is just. If it is just it must serve justice. It's a logical, rational necessity.

That's a tough nut to crack. Try to. :e4e:

As I have pointed out several times, the way the requirements of the Law are written, many guilty people will go free of punishment.
Since the Law is God's Law, it is just.
If a just Law must serve justice, then allowing many guilty people to go free due to failure to meet the requirements of the Law must therefore also serve justice.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, I do. He told us when he told her to go and sin no more.

You are presuming that the scribes and Pharisees are not false witnesses.
Jesus told us they were false witnesses when He said "let he who is without sin"

 

[genuineoriginal]

I do. Christ asked who was left to speak against her on the charge. She said no one. His command follows that. It remains about the charge. And then he tells her to sin no more. Any other reading must suppose something else. I'm not.

Perhaps she was not actually caught in the act of adultery but was merely pretending to have been caught because she was working a scam against Jesus with the scribes and Pharisees?
We know for sure that the scribes and Pharisees were not acting in accordance with the Law.