User Tag List

Page 79 of 79 FirstFirst ... 296976777879
Results 1,171 to 1,185 of 1185

Thread: The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

  1. #1171
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,208
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 10,300 Times in 7,587 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Town keeps saying "no," then providing reasons that have nothing to do with what was said. This is the fallacy of the non sequitur.

    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Picking up a stone would have identified a person as a witness, whether or not they "took the stand" to testify or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (September 13th, 2018),glorydaz (September 12th, 2018),JudgeRightly (September 12th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 1st, 2018)

  3. #1172
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,180
    Thanks
    3,571
    Thanked 7,721 Times in 4,461 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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.

    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.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  4. #1173
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,208
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 10,300 Times in 7,587 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (September 13th, 2018),glorydaz (September 12th, 2018),JudgeRightly (September 12th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 1st, 2018)

  6. #1174
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,208
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 10,300 Times in 7,587 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    glorydaz (September 12th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 1st, 2018),Yorzhik (September 13th, 2018)

  8. #1175
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    22,966
    Thanks
    13,851
    Thanked 36,093 Times in 18,090 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147796
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post

    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.

  9. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (September 13th, 2018),Grosnick Marowbe (September 13th, 2018),JudgeRightly (September 13th, 2018),lifeisgood (September 20th, 2018)

  10. #1176
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,180
    Thanks
    3,571
    Thanked 7,721 Times in 4,461 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    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.
    I'll try to live with the disappointment.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  11. #1177
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,516 Times in 1,098 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No. I've only noted what he knew and how that related.
    You are making assumptions of what He knew.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?



    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

    lifeisgood (September 20th, 2018),Stripe (September 13th, 2018)

  13. #1178
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,516 Times in 1,098 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    By way of, again, the anyone as opposed to the two or more required by law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    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.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  14. #1179
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,516 Times in 1,098 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post


    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?



    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 13th, 2018),lifeisgood (September 20th, 2018)

  16. #1180
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,180
    Thanks
    3,571
    Thanked 7,721 Times in 4,461 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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.

    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.

    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  17. #1181
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,516 Times in 1,098 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Yes, the scribes and Pharisees never expected Jesus to tell them to obey the Law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You mean they expected him to make a mistake about it.
    No, I mean they were probably expecting Jesus to start arguing with (instructing) them about what the Law said.
    (You have stated several times that Jesus could have done just that very thing.)
    Instead, Jesus basically told the scribes and Pharisees to do what the Law commands.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    In any event, he didn't answer them in kind
    Like I said, Jesus did not do what they expected Him to do (and you are saying that He could have done).
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    What court?
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.
    Okay we will go with that.
    Jesus was named judge and court was in session as soon as the scribes and Pharisees brought the woman to Him.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    But no witness is called.
    The witnesses had already provided the testimony, they did not need to be called to testify after that.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No witness is examined as to the truth of the testimony.
    Sure they were. Jesus knew their thoughts and the evil in their hearts:

    Matthew 9:4
    4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?


    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No number is stated
    If Jesus told them to start throwing stones according to the Law, there must have been the necessary number of witnesses needed to testify.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    and worse, for the legalists, the number permitted to function as executioner, without that, is singular.
    The commandment states that the hands of the witnesses are to be the first to put the guilty to death.
    There is no mention of whether they must all act at the same time or if they can go one at a time.
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Your understanding appears to assume that God wrote the Law without mercy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.
    I was prepared to reconsider my statement, but then you go and prove my point.

    By all appearances, you are arguing that God excluded mercy in the commandments of the Law in opposition to my argument that God wrote His commandments in a way to maximize His mercy.

    I believe that because God commanded that two or three witnesses were required to put someone to death, then when there are not the required number of witnesses to the guilt of the accused the accused goes free by God's commandment.
    Since God is just (righteous), His commandments are also just (righteous), and the guilty going free due to lack of witnesses is also just (righteous), and God's justice is served, even though man may want to usurp God's vengeance.

    Romans 12:19-20
    19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
    20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  18. #1182
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,208
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 10,300 Times in 7,587 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.


    Learn to defend your ideas without wailing about those who disagree with you.

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 13th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 1st, 2018)

  20. #1183
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,180
    Thanks
    3,571
    Thanked 7,721 Times in 4,461 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147821
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    No, I mean they were probably expecting Jesus to start arguing with (instructing) them about what the Law said.
    Seems reasonable. And they must have then thought he'd get it wrong. Why would they think that? The trap as offered wasn't particularly clever. It's a peculiar thing. Or maybe they were driven to it by assuming they understood the law of God better than anyone who wasn't of them. Maybe it was hubris that led them to believe they knew it well enough. They don't appear to.

    (You have stated several times that Jesus could have done just that very thing.)
    The easiest and direct way to send them packing if the point was to answer on the law. Sure. It's what started me reading over it again and looking harder at it. The more I do the more I see the hand of God in it, from the otherwise peculiar hubris of those proffering a trap that mostly appears to find its strength in the anger of the mob, to the writing in dust and the answer that was something different and other than what could have been expected.

    Instead, Jesus basically told the scribes and Pharisees to do what the Law commands.
    No, I don't believe that he did and for the reasons given prior.

    Like I said, Jesus did not do what they expected Him to do (and you are saying that He could have done).
    That's what I said too.

    Okay we will go with that. Jesus was named judge and court was in session as soon as the scribes and Pharisees brought the woman to Him.
    It certainly was the intended process put into play, if imperfectly. So he was given a question. But do you think they were prepared to accept his judgment? Would a stone have flown if he'd said, "Go to," to that mob? Doesn't seem likely, given their purpose. Nonetheless, it has the trappings of a trial. A charge is brought and an offender placed before him. Errors in process abound. Christ doesn't speak to them.

    Instead, he speaks to the heart of men. And it remains my contention that when he wrote in the dust, when he spoke to their hearts, and when he released the woman with an admonition something important was foreshadowed and happening there that you miss.

    The witnesses had already provided the testimony,
    No. A couple of witnesses would have to come forward and be examined. Reading their hearts wouldn't be conforming to the law. You should look at what I brought over and linked to in the Jewish law site on the point. None of that happened and a mob making claims isn't it.

    If Jesus told them to start throwing stones according to the Law
    The "according to the law" is all you. It's not according to the law. Little of this was.

    The commandment states that the hands of the witnesses are to be the first to put the guilty to death.
    I don't know why you keep writing that when I haven't once disputed it. What I noted is that the license given would amount to allowing one person willing to advance their sinlessness as the judge and executioner of the woman. That's not the law. But more, it's predicated on a thing that isn't in the law either, a standard that confounded the mob and, I believe, evidences and foreshadows something else.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  21. #1184
    Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    17,208
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 10,300 Times in 7,587 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147824
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    What I noted is that the license given would amount to allowing one person willing to advance their sinlessness as the judge and executioner of the woman. That's not the law. But more, it's predicated on a thing that isn't in the law either, a standard that confounded the mob and, I believe, evidences and foreshadows something else.
    Why don't you tell us what it foreshadows?

    You got into this mess by indicating that the DP does not apply because of this passage. So you think this story foreshadows the elimination of the DP?



    Let me guess. "Prior," right?
    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    When the world is a monster
    Bad to swallow you whole
    Kick the clay that holds the teeth in
    Throw your trolls out the door

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (September 15th, 2018),lifeisgood (October 1st, 2018)

  23. #1185
    TOL Subscriber Zeke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,548
    Thanks
    159
    Thanked 395 Times in 363 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    147880
    Speaking of simple ignorance the right and left are a plague on truth.
    Trying to awaken the divine principle in the belly of the fish.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us