The Left has become dangerously unhinged.

[genuineoriginal]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.​

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?​

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.

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.

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.

I was prepared to reconsider my statement, but then you go and prove my point.
:idunno:
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.​

 

[Stripe]

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.

:allsmile:

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

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

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.

 

[Stripe]

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?

:think:

Let me guess. "Prior," right?
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Zeke]

Speaking of simple ignorance the right and left are a plague on truth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779536870910709952

 

[ok doser]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779536870910709952

Idiot

 

[Right Divider]

Idiot

Worse.

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780355488586080664

 

[JudgeRightly]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1782265370088223055