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.
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.