The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

genuineoriginal

New member
The law says what it says. The woman was never in danger of being justly convicted by it in that setting.
I don't believe that's necessarily true or accept that your reading of the requirement makes that so, but it doesn't help you, given it would make Christ's potential instruction in the law sufficient to defeat the crowd and sustain what you want sustained. I think something else happened and I've set out why.
You can't have it both ways.
Either Jesus defeated a trap based on the Law or Jesus abolished the Law.
Since you don't believe that it is "necessarily true" that Jesus defeated a trap based on the Law, the only thing left to believe is that Jesus abolished the Law.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
You can't have it both ways.
You have to aim the "necessarily true" at the right subject, which was that the woman would be convicted. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I don't know that the man couldn't be produced, given the assertion that they were caught in the act. So an admonishment that corrected on their process by Christ could have foreseeably resulted in her conviction and death.

But he didn't do that. And he knew her to be guilty. Within those two truths is another.

Either Jesus defeated a trap based on the Law or Jesus abolished the Law.
Is fulfilled the same thing as abolished? Is meeting the sacrificial element of a thing that required blood the same as erasing the law? I don't believe that it is.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
As I have pointed out several times, the way the requirements of the Law are written, many guilty people will go free of punishment.
Not because it is God's desire that the guilty went unpunished by the law. I've said more than once that within the restraints of the day I don't know how anyone could do better or how God could expect more of men. But with men will come error and with error injustice in the pursuit of justice.

Since the Law is God's Law, it is just.
I agree.

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.
No. Failing to render a just verdict isn't a service to justice, only a lamentable but inescapable byproduct of necessity.

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"
Where prior in the law does it say a witness to a case must be sinless to proffer testimony?

So no, I don't believe that's what he did. Witnesses were never called and he wouldn't have called for an unspecified number. He'd have had to call for at least two. But he said one, any one of them meeting that standard would be sufficient for judgment. That's not the law. And he's not escaping their trap by relating to or calling upon the law.

I think there's a reason for that and I've spoken to it.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
You have to aim the "necessarily true" at the right subject, which was that the woman would be convicted.
The woman going free is "necessarily true" according to the Law.
an admonishment that corrected on their process by Christ could have foreseeably resulted in her conviction and death.
You are presuming several things:
  1. the woman was guilty of adultery
  2. the scribes and Pharisees were not false witnesses
  3. killing the woman alone would serve justice
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Where prior in the law does it say a witness to a case must be sinless to proffer testimony?
The witnesses must be free of the sin of perjury:

Deuteronomy 19:18
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;​

According to the Law, the first thing Jesus had to do was determine if the witnesses were false witnesses or not.
He gave the false witnesses the opportunity to flee before pronouncing judgment on them.
Once the false witnesses had fled, there were no other witnesses against the woman, so she went free.
Justice was served according to the letter of the Law.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Is fulfilled the same thing as abolished? Is meeting the sacrificial element of a thing that required blood the same as erasing the law? I don't believe that it is.

Except that you stepped into this discussion by responding to scriptural advocation of the DP with "he without sin."

Nobody knows what you mean by fulfilled. It looks like you mean "eradicated," given your response to Jerry, but your defense makes it look like you want it to mean something else.

In reality, it looks like you mean to do away with the law and replace it with your own ideas.

You can't have it both ways: Either the law is in place or it isn't. Which is it?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The witnesses must be free of the sin of perjury:
Deuteronomy 19:18
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;​
Perjury isn't a sin that exists until after you testify if you do so falsely. So again, no requirement that a person offering witness be sinless to offer witness. It's a different standard and for a reason.

According to the Law, the first thing Jesus had to do was determine if the witnesses were false witnesses or not.
No, because you couldn't make that determination without witness being given first. But it's not about that anyway, a thing supported by his not calling them and by his not asking for 2 or more, saying that ANY (one, single) person without sin (not without an honest witness) could throw the first stone at the woman. One true witness wouldn't satisfy the law's requirement.

He gave the false witnesses the opportunity to flee before pronouncing judgment on them.
Why would he? That's not what the law asks for either. It even has a penalty for bearing it.

Also, he tells the woman to sin no more. The charge wasn't false going by what Jesus declares on the point after the matter is settled practically speaking.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Perjury isn't a sin that exists until after you testify if you do so falsely. So again, no requirement that a person offering witness be sinless to offer witness. It's a different standard and for a reason.
This isn't a modern courtroom and I confused the issue by using "perjury" instead of the Biblical term "false witness".
The "trial" began when the scribes and Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus to judge and made the accusation.

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.​

Picking up a stone would have identified a person as a witness, whether or not they "took the stand" to testify or not.
Since none of the scribes and Pharisees were true witnesses, none of them could pick up a stone without being guilty of the sin of being a false witness.
No, because you couldn't make that determination without witness being given first.
Supra
But it's not about that anyway, a thing supported by his not calling them and by his not asking for 2 or more, saying that ANY (one, single) person without sin (not without an honest witness) could throw the first stone at the woman.
Your continual statements that Jesus did not do what you thought He should have done are worthless.
Everything Jesus ACTUALLY did was fully in accordance with the requirements of the Law.
Jesus did not need to do anything other than what He did to fulfill the requirements of the Law.
You seem to have a problem with that.
One true witness wouldn't satisfy the law's requirement.
Yes, but there was not even one true witness.
Jesus asked the woman where her accusers were, and none were to be found.
Why would he? That's not what the law asks for either. It even has a penalty for bearing it.
You have no problem with Jesus not putting the woman to death, but you have a problem with Jesus not putting the false witnesses to death?
Jesus allowed the scribes and Pharisees to leave the "trial" before any of them identified himself as a false witness.
The "trial" ended without judgment due to lack of witnesses.
Also, he tells the woman to sin no more. The charge wasn't false going by what Jesus declares on the point after the matter is settled practically speaking.
Never once did Jesus say the woman was actually guilty of adultery.
The only thing any of us has to go on is the initial accusations of the scribes and Pharisees, who chose to remove their testimony by leaving the trial before any of them were identified as a false witness.
We do not know if she really was caught in the act of adultery or if she was a part of the scam to test Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
This isn't a modern courtroom and I confused the issue by using "perjury" instead of the Biblical term "false witness"...Picking up a stone would have identified a person as a witness, whether or not they "took the stand" to testify or not.
No, because he didn't say pick up a stone and bear witness. He said pick it up and throw it if you're sinless.

This wasn't the normal run of Biblical due process, but it is a very creative exegesis on your part. I'll credit it that.

And again, on that prior point, you can't judge the truth of a thing until it's offered. Nothing in what you wrote alters that and so you still have the same problem on the point as I noted in my last.

Your continual statements that Jesus did not do what you thought He should have done are worthless.
Your continual statement that my proffer Jesus did not do what he would have to do to do what you think he was doing as worthless is worthless. :eek:

Everything Jesus ACTUALLY did was fully in accordance with the requirements of the Law.
No. He never got into a point of law. And suggesting, let alone saying outright that one person without sin could act as judge and jury isn't in accord with the law. But that's okay, because he wasn't actually playing their game.

Jesus did not need to do anything other than what He did to fulfill the requirements of the Law.
You seem to have a problem with that.
I have a problem with the contortions you have to go through to get close to making that work. The most outrageous one so far is the judgment of witness preceding the actual act of bearing it. That one was something.

Yes, but there was not even one true witness.
We don't know that, since no one was called and the standard he set out wasn't in accord with the law, which is okay, again, for the reason offered prior and supra.

Jesus asked the woman where her accusers were, and none were to be found.
Right. He did that. He let the woman who he knew to be guilty go with the admonishment to sin no more right after noting that. That's not what the law was designed to do in relation to transgression and punishment. It was designed to make as sure as could be in the period that the guilty were in fact guilty. To the point, as you note, of letting some people who might have been guilty go. Because men lack God's certainty. And therein rests just one of the many problems with your advance that I've noted prior.

You have no problem with Jesus not putting the woman to death
Right. I have no problem with God deciding a thing. I have no problem with Christ foreshadowing the mercy coming through grace for moral transgression.

, but you have a problem with Jesus not putting the false witnesses to death?
There aren't any false witnesses in the narrative. We don't get to Christ calling for one...though he does give the go-ahead to anyone sinless who wants to let fly. And that pulls their teeth. They'd need something they don't have to pass that judgment. Something Christ can provide for her and will provide for any who call upon him.

Never once did Jesus say the woman was actually guilty of adultery.
Sure he did. She was brought to him on a specific charge. He asked her if anyone was still pressing that charge. The answer was no. Then he didn't say, "Well, then you're innocent." He said for her to go and sin no more.

I suppose you could say he was literally telling her not to commit any sin of any kind at any point in the future, but that doesn't make much sense. Not committing adultery again though, that does.

We do not know if she really was caught in the act of adultery or if she was a part of the scam to test Jesus.
Scripture doesn't say the charge was baseless. And Jesus indicates it was anything but. That's good enough.

And absent some new ground that's about it for me. I've said what I meant to, put the reason and exegesis into my part, read and responded to a few of you with a different narrative interpretation. I'm comfortable with that.

:e4e:
 

genuineoriginal

New member
No. He never got into a point of law.
Still worthless.
one person without sin could act as judge and jury isn't in accord with the law.
And yet, your arguments are often based on trying to make Jesus (one person without sin) act as judge and jury.

I have a problem with the contortions you have to go through to get close to making that work. The most outrageous one so far is the judgment of witness preceding the actual act of bearing it. That one was something.
In the modern courtroom, when the judge tells the lawyer to "call your next witness", the witness is a witness before ever speaking a single word.
You seem to be wanting the witness to not be a witness until after the cross-examination is done and both lawyers say they have no further questions.

He let the woman who he knew to be guilty go with the admonishment to sin no more right after noting that.
Guilty of what?

That's not what the law was designed to do in relation to transgression and punishment.
Yes, it was.
The Law was designed to prevent the death penalty from being carried out if there were no witnesses to cast the first stones.

To the point, as you note, of letting some people who might have been guilty go. Because men lack God's certainty. And therein rests just one of the many problems with your advance that I've noted prior.
Your argument presumes that God is a god of judgment without mercy, who would always punish the guilty.
You keep arguing on how Jesus could/should have made sure the woman was put to death because Jesus knew she was guilty.

My argument presumes that God reserves judgment and mercy to Himself in all cases where the guilty goes free due to a failure to meet the requirements of the Law.
I keep arguing that the woman went free because of a failure to meet the requirements of the Law due to the way God designed the Law to provide for just that very thing to happen.

Right. I have no problem with God deciding a thing. I have no problem with Christ foreshadowing the mercy coming through grace for moral transgression.
You have a problem with God providing mercy through the way He established the requirements of the Law.

There aren't any false witnesses in the narrative.
All the scribes and Pharisees in the narrative were false witnesses.

We don't get to Christ calling for one...though he does give the go-ahead to anyone sinless who wants to let fly. And that pulls their teeth. They'd need something they don't have to pass that judgment.
The scribes and Pharisees would not have been affected by the "he who is without sin" remark from Jesus in the way you are assuming they were.
The idea that any transgression of the law makes a person guilty of transgressing the whole law did not come about until after the crucifixion.
The only sin that would affect the scribes and Pharisees the way it is described would be if they were guilty of the sin of being a false witness.

She was brought to him on a specific charge. He asked her if anyone was still pressing that charge. The answer was no. Then he didn't say, "Well, then you're innocent."
You are still trying to force your ideas about modern courtroom practices upon the situation.
That will never work.

He said for her to go and sin no more.
You are assuming that means she was guilty of adultery?
The only people saying she was guilty of adultery were the false witnesses.

I suppose you could say he was literally telling her not to commit any sin of any kind at any point in the future, but that doesn't make much sense. Not committing adultery again though, that does.
The woman was either guilty of conspiring with the scribes and Pharisees or she was guilty of adultery.
Either sin could have been the one Jesus was telling her to stop.

Scripture doesn't say the charge was baseless. And Jesus indicates it was anything but. That's good enough.
There were no witnesses to cast the first stone.
The Law required that there needed to be two or three witnesses to cast the first stones.
That is good enough.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Town keeps saying "no," then providing reasons that have nothing to do with what was said. This is the fallacy of the non sequitur.

Picking up a stone would have identified a person as a witness, whether or not they "took the stand" to testify or not.
No, because he didn't say pick up a stone and bear witness. He said pick it up and throw it if you're sinless.

The identification of a person as a witness has nothing to do with what Jesus said.

Your continual statements that Jesus did not do what you thought He should have done are worthless.
Everything Jesus ACTUALLY did was fully in accordance with the requirements of the Law.
No. He never got into a point of law.
A man's actions can be in accordance with the law despite never getting to a point of law.

If you want a sensible discussion, you have to respond to what is written, not what you wish was said.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Still worthless.
Still pointless to write.

And yet, your arguments are often based on trying to make Jesus (one person without sin) act as judge and jury.
No. I've only noted what he knew and how that related.

In the modern courtroom, when the judge tells the lawyer to "call your next witness", the witness is a witness before ever speaking a single word.
You seem to be wanting the witness to not be a witness until after the cross-examination is done and both lawyers say they have no further questions.
No. In literally any court, including the Mosaic, you can't bear false witness until you do.

Guilty of what?
Answered prior. Hint: it's not jaywalking. :nono:

Yes, it was.
The Law was designed to prevent the death penalty from being carried out if there were no witnesses to cast the first stones.
That's just a silly attempt to make the standard fit what it clearly doesn't. By way of, again, the anyone as opposed to the two or more required by law. The absence of even calling for accusation, setting that aside to say that anyone without sin (not anyone with testimony) cast the first stone.

Your argument presumes that God is a god of judgment without mercy, who would always punish the guilty.
No, it doesn't. In fact, my understanding relates the greater extension of God's mercy through grace.

You keep arguing on how Jesus could/should have made sure the woman was put to death because Jesus knew she was guilty.
Rather, I've noted that if as you incorrectly presume Jesus was attempting to answer on the law and defeat it that way, the round about an tortured route you have to construct to support it makes far less sense than a direct instruction on the law by Christ. Quick, easy, and an end without ambiguity on the point.

I keep arguing that the woman went free because of a failure to meet the requirements of the Law due to the way God designed the Law to provide for just that very thing to happen.
I've answered on the problem with justice serving the law, and how easily Christ could have, had it been his point, pointed to the authority of the law and the necessity in its execution. He doesn't do that.

You have a problem with God providing mercy through the way He established the requirements of the Law.
You're wrong about mercy and my understanding, supra.

All the scribes and Pharisees in the narrative were false witnesses.
They could be if they gave it, which they didn't, so they aren't.

You are still trying to force your ideas about modern courtroom practices upon the situation.
That will never work.
An interesting new theme for you, but it's no more true than the idea a witness can be false before its given.

You are assuming that means she was guilty of adultery?
It's the only matter before Christ as that relates to her. It's rather a straight forward reading. Assumption would have to rest in any point contrary to it.

The only people saying she was guilty of adultery were the false witnesses.
That only exists in your need and narrative. It's not native to the text, which lays the charge that a woman caught in adultery is brought before Jesus. A woman who, after no one else remains, he instructs to go and sin no more. The only sin we have there to consider is unambiguous.

Either sin could have been the one Jesus was telling her to stop.
It's possible that she was a serial killer and the crowd just didn't know. But there's no real reason to assume it, or your hypothetical.

The Law required that there needed to be two or three witnesses to cast the first stones.
Jesus didn't though. Because he didn't use the law to defeat the law. Something new, rooted in his authority, was happening there and foreshadowing what would happen later for everyone who believes.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Rather, I've noted that if as you incorrectly presume Jesus was attempting to answer on the law and defeat it that way, the round about an tortured route you have to construct to support it makes far less sense than a direct instruction on the law by Christ.
The "roundabout" method we we have is to quote the law. It says "execute both."

Quick, easy, and an end without ambiguity.

He didn't use the law to defeat the law.
He used the law to defeat lawlessness.

Something new, rooted in his authority, was happening there and foreshadowing what would happen later for everyone who believes.

This sort of thing happening does not eliminate the possibility that He presented the law.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
There aren't any false witnesses in the narrative.

The narative says, "a woman taken in adultery.." Yet, they claimed it was "in the very act".

John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

John 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

You have no idea if that was true. Yet you claim there weren't any false witnesses. Their words are a witness that is not included in the narrative.

I wouldn't want you on my jury, TH. :chuckle:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The narative says, "a woman taken in adultery.." Yet, they claimed it was "in the very act".
John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

John 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.


8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?


You have no idea if that was true.
Of course I do. A woman taken in adultery. That's the narrative before anyone opens their mouths. But none of what they say when they do is witness. You should take a look at what was to happen in relation to an actual witness. That's not it. No trial was ongoing. The scribes and Pharisees are presenting him with a question on the law.

Then he does something unforeseeable by them, as I noted.

Yet you claim there weren't any false witnesses.
I've noted the scripture and Jesus tell us of her guilt. First in the highlighted portion of the text I note that you include but don't appear to consider and then in Christ's command to the woman after her accusers have faded into the woodwork, likely to ponder what just happened to them.

Their words are a witness that is not included in the narrative.
I think you left something out of that...Anyway, you should read the Jewish site post on the act and what was to happen in relation to witness. It's not happening there.

I wouldn't want you on my jury, TH. :chuckle:
I'll try to live with the disappointment. :eek:
 

genuineoriginal

New member
No. I've only noted what he knew and how that related.
You are making assumptions of what He knew.

No. In literally any court, including the Mosaic, you can't bear false witness until you do.
What court?
This is a case of Mosaic Law which does not have courts.
Look closely, there is no court mentioned.
What is mentioned is that the witnesses must be the first to put someone to death.

Deuteronomy 17:5-13
5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
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.
8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose;
9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
10 And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
11 According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.​


my understanding relates the greater extension of God's mercy through grace.
Your understanding appears to assume that God wrote the Law without mercy.
The Bible shows differently.

Psalm 119:64,124
64 The earth, O Lord, is full of thy mercy: teach me thy statutes.
124 Deal with thy servant according unto thy mercy, and teach me thy statutes.​


Rather, I've noted that if as you incorrectly presume Jesus was attempting to answer on the law and defeat it that way, the round about an tortured route you have to construct to support it makes far less sense than a direct instruction on the law by Christ. Quick, easy, and an end without ambiguity on the point.

I've answered on the problem with justice serving the law, and how easily Christ could have, had it been his point, pointed to the authority of the law and the necessity in its execution. He doesn't do that.
Why do you keep assuming that you know better than Jesus on the best way to turn the trap upon the scribes and Pharisees?
Jesus obviously was not attempting to teach those "experts" the Law by words but by actions.

It's the only matter before Christ as that relates to her. It's rather a straight forward reading. Assumption would have to rest in any point contrary to it.
Whether the woman was guilty of adultery or not, the only matter that relates to her is whether there are the required two or three witnesses.

John 8:10
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, [JESUS]Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?[/JESUS]​


Jesus didn't though. Because he didn't use the law to defeat the law.
Jesus used the Law to defeat the trap.
Jesus did nothing to defeat the Law.
Jesus defeated the trap by acting according to what was written in the Law.
He didn't speak about the faults in the trap or any other scenario you think He should have done instead of doing what He actually did.

Something new, rooted in his authority, was happening there and foreshadowing what would happen later for everyone who believes.
No, that is an unsupportable assumption that does not match the narrative.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
By way of, again, the anyone as opposed to the two or more required by law.
I'd like to point out all the errors in this mish-mash of letters, but nobody has the first foggy notion of what it means.
I think he is saying that Jesus opened up throwing the first stone to anyone instead of restricting it to the two or three witnesses who are required by the Law to be the first to put the person to death.
 

genuineoriginal

New member


[FONT=&]8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,[/FONT]
[FONT=&]4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

[/FONT]


Of course I do. A woman taken in adultery. That's the narrative before anyone opens their mouths.
The accused is presumed guilty and has to prove innocence?
That is not how it works.

The scribes and Pharisees are presenting him with a question on the law.

Then he does something unforeseeable by them, as I noted.
Yes, the scribes and Pharisees never expected Jesus to tell them to obey the Law.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
The accused is presumed guilty and has to prove innocence?
That is not how it works.
It is in some countries, but it wasn't in my writing.

Yes, the scribes and Pharisees never expected Jesus to tell them to obey the Law.
You mean they expected him to make a mistake about it. Why they would expect that is anyone's guess.

In any event, he didn't answer them in kind, which is both illuminating and a little funny. I wonder if he smiled as he wrote in the dust. I wonder sometimes if he smiles as he shakes his head at children squabbling in that same dust (by which I mean us, of course). :)

You are making assumptions of what He knew.
No, I'm not. He tells us. I've been over that before.

What court?
Any place where law functions and judgement is rendered. You can have court in a field, just as you can have church in a van.

What is mentioned is that the witnesses must be the first to put someone to death.
Never a point of contention. But no witness is called. No witness is examined as to the truth of the testimony. No number is stated and worse, for the legalists, the number permitted to function as executioner, without that, is singular. One good arm with a rock and it could be over.

Fortunately, Jesus isn't confounding them with the law, but with their own hearts.

Your understanding appears to assume that God wrote the Law without mercy.
You've said something like that before. You might want to concentrate more on what you believe and think and why, and leave off trying to tell me my mind, unless you're going to be much better at it than you appear presently. The law is just, as an instrument to be used by men. God, the author, can and has been merciful, even in the days before grace. They're just two different things to speak to.

The Bible shows differently.
It's not differing with me, though it may well differ with your understanding of me, which might be the fault of my writing or of your reading. :idunno:

Why do you keep assuming that you know better than Jesus
Unless you've had a legal name change, that's not the problem. However, that sort of thing kills my interest in whatever it is you mean to wrap it around. If I wanted that approach I'd still be talking to Stripe...I may be mistaken and you may be mistaken, but that's another matter.

Get back to me when you can reign in that tendency.

:e4e:
 
Top