If Jesus agreed that the woman should die, he would be answerable to Rome. If he preferred compassion over judgement, he was answerable to Moses. Do you see the awkward position he was in? What were his options?quote]
We know about the issues with Rome and the Jews carrying out punishments. It's actually a central part to my argument on this subject every time it has come up. It is another reason Jess did not condemn her. Not because He preferred compassion over judgment. Those two things are not mutually exclusive and Jesus is God incarnate, who is the same yesterday, today and forever. Your entire argument hinges on God changing personality; you make him out to be at the very least, schizophrenic.
If you are right, Jesus would have just said, "you are not using the law in a lawful way, and therefore your case is irrelevant". Did he do this? No
How do you know? Do you know what Jesus wrote in the sand?
Also, do you think they didn't know what thy were doing? Why would Jesus state the obvious?
And, if this is what he meant, it would be a nothing piece of scripture. It would be totally pointless. Every commentary on the planet would be wrong, all the study bibles, thousands of sermons preached on this passage would be wrong. An astonishing display of wisdom is simply relegated to a pointless discussion with a bunch of accusers.
There is absolutely nothing pointless about it. Jesus taught a valuable lesson that day. That woman got off scot free, for several reasons, and Jesus taught that such a thing should not be abused, for one. He also taught, again, that hypocrites shouldn't judge and that the law should be followed to the letter if it applies to you and you plan to follow it.
Jesus' answer to the accusers was, "he who is without sin cast the first stone", Do you realize that Jesus returned the trap on to the accusers?
Yes we do. Do you realize what their sins were?
They were the ones who caught the woman, and they were the ones citing the Mosaic law. Now the accusers were faced with their own dilemma.
Do they obey Moses or Rome? And if they obey Moses, are they morally qualified to carry out the judgement?
If they had executed that woman they would not have been following the law of Moses.:nono:
Now that we've dealt with the judicial part of the law (once and for all hopefully), let's look at the moral side of it.
We haven't dealt with the judicial side, though. You are ignoring some major aspects. And the moral side is the same as the judicial side. Apparently you don't know the meaning of "moral."
The woman was a sinner. Jesus came to save sinners. Even though the woman was guilty of adultery, he said "I do not condemn you, go and sin no more". If the woman wasn't forgiven, what would be the point of not sinning anymore?
:doh:
You still don't know why Jesus didn't condemn her. And you still don't get the point that she could not be forgiven, because Jesus didn't know her as guilty, because her guilt was never actually established.
The law condemned her. The Jews would have treated her as an outcast. She would have had no credibility in her community, and this would be the condemnation on her. Jesus said, "go in peace". That means, "go and live a new life free from this condemnation", She was forgiven in other words.
- Jesus did not say, "Go in peace," to this woman. That was another woman.
- The Law didn't condemn her because she was never found guilty. You've already made the argument that this was not an official trial, and we agree. You've defeated your own argument.
- Since she was not found guilty she was therefore not condemned and thereby she could not be forgiven.
Let me lay it out for you like this: if you were guilty of a capital crime and you were brought by witnesses to some religious teacher they wanted to discredit, instead of a judge, and the teacher showed them up and destroyed their kangaroo court, thereby eliminating you from any condemnation or even being found guilty, would it be right for the teacher to forgive you of a crime of which you had not been found guilty?
But if you simply refuse to accept that she was forgiven because you have to, as mad depends on it, well then the woman in Luke 7 was forgiven of many sins. Her faith saved her, and she was forgiven, just as people are today.
What was the basis for this forgiveness? The law doesn't forgive sinners. Jesus did.
MAD doesn't depend on it. It just happens to be true. She wasn't found guilty and therefore could not be forgiven.
You've defeated your own logic right here. Jesus doesn't explain the law to them because the accusers were going on the assumption that she was guilty of adultery, and what that would have meant theologically?
If the accusers were seriously intending to kill this woman, they would have carried this out lawfully regardless of Jesus' response.
Jesus didn't explain the law because they knew the law. They were breaking it, after all.
If they were going to carry it out lawfully then they never would have brought her to Jesus.
The pharisees brought a case to Jesus where the woman was caught in the very act, and Jesus didn't challenge this.
And so, according to Moses, what would happen to a person in that situation? This was the question put to him.
Nothing would have happened, because the law was not being followed.
He did not respond with the excuses you're coming up with. You really do love your mad, don't you?
The lengths you'll go to to salvage it.
What excuses?
There's nothing to understand that has already been stated more than once.
You're stuck aren't you? Just like the others.
Luke 7:48-50
Then He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." ................"Your faith has saved you. Go in peace."
What gave Jesus the right to forgive sins?
And what was her faith in?
- That's not even the same woman, or the same event.
- Her faith was in Him.
Oh. You want to talk about a case where a woman is not charged with adultery now...
Sent from my SM-G9250 using
TheologyOnline mobile app
I know, right?
Alright lets quote the law. As I've said numerous times, there's no pint because this wasn't an official trial, it was theological entrapment. But these guys insist, so lets do it.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Go!
I'll let you put your spin on how this affects the situation with the woman caught in adultery. Although we've seen it before.
There's more to the law on the subject than this. Also, you're overlooking a piece of this missing from the event in question, which shows the Pharisees were not following the law.
How can constantly trying to direct the discussion back to the OP be changing the subject? The woman caught in a adultery was from a discussion in another thread, but the mads want to talk about it in this thread. I know why that is. The woman in Luke's gospel was forgiven of many sins because her faith saved her. And I want to know what her faith was in, and what was the basis for Jesus to forgive?
Her faith was in Him and He is God; He can forgive whomever He likes. And she had shown her faith in Him as the Messiah, so He forgave her.
Quoting the law didn't help you, did it?
She was guilty. Even she didn't deny it.
You only quoted part of the law.
It challenges it in a manner that is not consistent with what Mid-Acts Dispensationalism teaches, Andy. You're fighting a strawman and defeating nothing.
Here, I'll give you a clue...
People under the Law were saved by grace as is everyone who has ever been or will ever be saved.
This is actually a cental teaching of Acts 9 Dispensationalism and yet you act as if we teach that there can be no grace in a covenant of law. We teach no such thing. The point of the OP is therefore moot.
There are a thousand different details that dispensationalists actually do teach that are legitimately debatable and you and others like you, who aren't really interested in debate or in learning anything, choose to debate stupidity and pretend like you're defeating dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is either true or it isn't, Andy. If it's false then debate what it actually teaches and prove it, if you can. If it isn't false then you'll fail in your attempt and it'll be up to you to decide what that means and whether you have the courage to alter your own doctrine. As it is, all you're accomplishing is your own diminishment. Flailing away at strawmen is a game reserved for fools.
Resting in Him,
Clete
He's tilting at windmills.
