ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

[andyc]

This incident happened on Old Testament ground just as much as if it had taken place under Moses.

Had Christ condemned her, He would have been guilty of breaking the Law by condemning only the woman and not the absent man -- an angle the Pharisees, hypocrites that they were, would have been sure to play up to denounce Him. Therefore, He did not condemn her. HE COULDN'T.

Had Christ forgiven her (assuming she'd even wanted to be forgiven, which does not seem to be the case), He would likewise have broken the Law for pronouncing her forgiven for something which under the Law could not be forgiven but required death. Therefore He did not forgive her. HE COULDN'T.

So basically, the woman had committed a sin worthy of death. You say that because the trial was a sham, she was unable to be put to death, and so she escaped instant judgement because the accusers messed up with the legal process?

As I've said before, this was irrelevant because the entrapment was theological. The accusers were only trying to get Jesus to contradict Moses in order to expose him as a fraud.

However, even if you were right, Jesus told the woman to "go and sin no more". What difference would it be to go and sin no more?
What would motivate this woman to stop sinning, while knowing she had violated a law that demanded death. She would be an outcast among the Jews, because everyone knew what she was, and even she could not deny it.
So she would still be under condemnation, just not dead. Jesus said, "neither do I condemn you".

What did Jesus mean?
There wasn't legal ground to kill her?
He offering her the chance to repent and live a new life, in which he would take the condemnation for her adultery?

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

 

[Crucible]

MADism is akin to cultist doctrine. No need to waste a lot of time contending a belief which denies all church tradition and reports that people will be flying up into the sky before the world ends

 

[musterion]

An incident directly involving the Law took place.

Some here very patiently cite what the Law said on the matter in order to understand it.

Andy waves off the Law as irrelevant to the discussion because it won't let him arrive at the conclusion he's already reached.

 

[Clete]

Do you believe when Jesus told the woman neither do I condemn you go and sin no more meant nothing ?

Huh?

It's not written in code. The context makes it quite clear. The "witnesses" refused to condemn her and so Jesus said, "neither do I". What else could it mean? Your question makes no sense.

Perhaps a better question is...

What is it that you need it to mean to maintain your position?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Stripe]

Andy you're proving yourself to be a waste of everyone's time. You "answer" questions with double talk (intentionally) and ask questions of another paradigm that only make sense from within your own paradigm (i.e. question begging) and when that is pointed out, you ignore it and repeat the question and proclaim that we can't answer it. We have answered it, several times. You're just either stupid or dishonest.

Either way...

:wave2:

:rotfl:

:thumb:

Amazing. Only Lighthouse has attempted a response. If you've answered it, no one has seen your answer. If the woman was under the law, how could Jesus forgive sin? It's such a simple question, and you can't answer it.

:darwinsm:

:mock: Stupid AndyC

 

[Stripe]

Not hardly ! Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law and brought GRACE and TRUTH;otherwise, the woman caught in adultery would have been stoned.

Nope. The law says otherwise.

One thing that should be remembered here is that the Law required the testimony of two or three witnesses to establish guilt. The witnesses all left without testifying against her. This allowed Jesus to not convict her and thereby escape the trap that the pharsiees had set for him since it was illegal under Roman rule to execute anyone without permission from the Roman authorities, all without violating the Law Himself.

Jesus was/is smarter than your average TOL participant.

:up:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

So basically, the woman had committed a sin worthy of death. You say that because the trial was a sham, she was unable to be put to death, and so she escaped instant judgement because the accusers messed up with the legal process?

As I've said before, this was irrelevant because the entrapment was theological. The accusers were only trying to get Jesus to contradict Moses in order to expose him as a fraud.

However, even if you were right, Jesus told the woman to "go and sin no more". What difference would it be to go and sin no more?
What would motivate this woman to stop sinning, while knowing she had violated a law that demanded death. She would be an outcast among the Jews, because everyone knew what she was, and even she could not deny it.
So she would still be under condemnation, just not dead. Jesus said, "neither do I condemn you".

What did Jesus mean?
There wasn't legal ground to kill her?
He offering her the chance to repent and live a new life, in which he would take the condemnation for her adultery?

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

:chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

Why do you believe scripture specifically says the LAW came by MOSES but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ ?

Jhn 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

The scripture says that Jesus was "made of a woman, made under the law". Gal 4:4

In the flesh, Jesus was an Israelite. Whether that makes you happy or not.

Who gave Moses the law?

Read ALL of that first chapter of John and not just your pet verses.

 

[Right Divider]

MADism is akin to cultist doctrine. No need to waste a lot of time contending a belief which denies all church tradition and reports that people will be flying up into the sky before the world ends

And YET.... here you are.... :hammer:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

MADism is akin to cultist doctrine. No need to waste a lot of time contending a belief which denies all church tradition and reports that people will be flying up into the sky before the world ends

:chuckle:

 

[Right Divider]

MADism is akin to cultist doctrine. No need to waste a lot of time contending a belief which denies all church tradition and reports that people will be flying up into the sky before the world ends

So I guess that you will not be meeting the Lord in the air. Too bad for you.

1Thess 4:16-18 (AKJV/PCE)​

(4:16) For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:(4:17) Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (4:18) Wherefore comfort one another with these words. ​

Is this passage not in your Bible? Do you have a Bible?

 

[Stripe]

And YET.... here you are.... :hammer:

:rotfl:

 

[Crucible]

So I guess that you will not be meeting the Lord in the air. Too bad for you.

I guess you weren't predestined :idunno:

The Rapture is childish belief- it is not in orthodox Christianity, it's 19th century heresy.
I'll tell it till the End Times come when you find gravity oddly keeping you on the ground

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I guess you weren't predestined :idunno:

The Rapture is childish belief- it is not in orthodox Christianity, it's 19th century heresy.
I'll tell it till the End Times come when you find gravity oddly keeping you on the ground

:chuckle:

 

[Crucible]

And YET.... here you are.... :hammer:

There's never a need to waste time, but we all do it anyway :thumb:

 

[Right Divider]

I guess you weren't predestined :idunno:

The Rapture is childish belief- it is not in orthodox Christianity, it's 19th century heresy.
I'll tell it till the End Times come when you find gravity oddly keeping you on the ground

Actually, it is fully and completely Biblical and I pointed you to it.

You ignored the passage; just like you do most of the Bible.

 

[Crucible]

Actually, it is fully and completely Biblical and I pointed you to it.

It's not biblical, it's arbitrary interpretation. The passage you put up does not support a 'rapture'. That is not how it was ever interpreted.

First, you need to recognize the fact that something as explicit as a rapture would be more emphasized. Second, you need to acknowledge the fact that all the historical theologians never saw what you report is so 'easy' to see- meaning it's far more likely that it's not even there.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It's not biblical, it's arbitrary interpretation. The passage you put up does not support a 'rapture'. That is not how it was ever interpreted.

First, you need to recognize the fact that something as explicit as a rapture would be more emphasized. Second, you need to acknowledge the fact that all the historical theologians never saw what you report is so 'easy' to see- meaning it's far more likely that it's not even there.

:chuckle:

 

[john w]

I guess you weren't predestined :idunno:

The Rapture is childish belief- it is not in orthodox Christianity, it's 19th century heresy.
I'll tell it till the End Times come when you find gravity oddly keeping you on the ground

Your Uncle Ben Pharoah, to the LORD God, in Exodus:This "The Great I Am," LORD God is childish belief-it is not orthodox theism, it's 2000 BC heresy.

Your Uncle Pharisee, to the Lord Jesus Christ: This "God the Father" LORD God is childish belief-it is not orthodox Judaism, it's first century heresy.

 

[john w]

It's not biblical, it's arbitrary interpretation. The passage you put up does not support a 'rapture'. That is not how it was ever interpreted.

First, you need to recognize the fact that something as explicit as a rapture would be more emphasized. Second, you need to acknowledge the fact that all the historical theologians never saw what you report is so 'easy' to see- meaning it's far more likely that it's not even there.

Witness the above deception, that says NADA. Translated: Humanism=I do not understand how there could be the concept of a rapture. I cannot understand how the Lord God would have a rapture. What I do not understand, I will not believe. Thus, there is no rapture.


That is how evolutionists dismiss the book of Genesis, and atheists dismiss the concept of hell.


Ladies, and gentlemen! May I introduce you to the humanist, evolutionist, atheist, Crucible? He talks like them-they talk like him.