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.
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.
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.
I agree.
No. Failing to render a just verdict isn't a service to justice, only a lamentable but inescapable byproduct of necessity.
Where prior in the law does it say a witness to a case must be sinless to proffer testimony?
The woman going free is "necessarily true" according to the Law.
You are presuming several things:
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.
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.
Why would he? That's not what the law asks for either. It even has a penalty for bearing it.
This isn't a modern courtroom and I confused the issue by using "perjury" instead of the Biblical term "false witness".
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. |
Supra
Your continual statements that Jesus did not do what you thought He should have done are worthless.
Yes, but there was not even one true witness.
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?
Never once did Jesus say the woman was actually guilty of adultery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scripture doesn't say the charge was baseless. And Jesus indicates it was anything but. That's good enough.
Still worthless.
And yet, your arguments are often based on trying to make Jesus (one person without sin) act as judge and jury.
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.
Guilty of what?
Yes, it was.
Your argument presumes that God is a god of judgment without mercy, who would always punish the guilty.
You have a problem with God providing mercy through the way He established the requirements of the Law.
All the scribes and Pharisees in the narrative were false witnesses.
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.
You are still trying to force your ideas about modern courtroom practices upon the situation.
You are assuming that means she was guilty of adultery?
The woman was either guilty of conspiring with the scribes and Pharisees or she was guilty of adultery.
There were no witnesses to cast the first stone.
A man's actions can be in accordance with the law despite never getting to a point of law.
Still pointless to write.
No. I've only noted what he knew and how that related.
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:
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.
No, it doesn't. In fact, my understanding relates the greater extension of God's mercy through grace.
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.
You're wrong about mercy and my understanding, supra.
They could be if they gave it, which they didn't, so they aren't.
An interesting new theme for you, but it's no more true than the idea a witness can be false before its given.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The "roundabout" method we we have is to quote the law. It says "execute both."
He used the law to defeat lawlessness.
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.
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.
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'll try to live with the disappointment.
You are making assumptions of what He knew.
What court?
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. |
Your understanding appears to assume that God wrote the Law without mercy.
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. |
Why do you keep assuming that you know better than Jesus on the best way to turn the trap upon the scribes and Pharisees?
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 used the Law to defeat the trap.
No, that is an unsupportable assumption that does not match the narrative.
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.
The accused is presumed guilty and has to prove innocence?
Yes, the scribes and Pharisees never expected Jesus to tell them to obey the Law.
It is in some countries, but it wasn't in my writing.
You mean they expected him to make a mistake about it. Why they would expect that is anyone's guess.
No, I'm not. He tells us. I've been over that before.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.