ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

andyc

New member
This is a statement that we cannot assess the truth value of, because you will not cite the law.

What is the law regarding adultery?

What does Ex 20:14 say?

The Mads are trying to persuade themselves into thinking that the woman caught in the act of adultery cannot be guilty of adultery because there was no official trial.
The fact is, she's guilty with God. The law condems adultery, and so God condemns adultery.

Why didn't Jesus?
 

andyc

New member
It's interesting that those who hate MAD types and those that believe in the Grace Gospel as preached by The Apostle Paul, always say the same thing about old GM: "You waste Bandwidth and never say anything of worth." They always come up with that line of Hooey!.


You are a pointless individual here.
 

andyc

New member
Obviously, there are some who do not understand what Acts 9 Dispensationalism teaches.

Sure I do.
They teach that Jesus was a minister of the Mosaic law. This thread challenges this fact. So go and read the OP again.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
LOL

You make dumb statement, and then call me dumb.
With God there is no sin without justice.

So far no one can come up with a basis for Jesus to forgive sin while supposedly ministering law.

I
Forgiveness and the law are not mutually exclusive. God doesn't forgive without justice.

Jesus didn't forgive the woman in this story.

What does Ex 20:14 say?

The Mads are trying to persuade themselves into thinking that the woman caught in the act of adultery cannot be guilty of adultery because there was no official trial.
The fact is, she's guilty with God. The law condems adultery, and so God condemns adultery.

Why didn't Jesus?
No we're not, idiot. She was guilty. That's not the issue.

If you want to know why Jesus didn't condemn her you need to know the law regarding adultery and execution. Do you? Or do I need to educate you so you'll no longer be an ignoramus?
 

andyc

New member
Forgiveness and the law are not mutually exclusive. God 't forgive without justice.

Jesus didn't forgive the woman in this story.


Then why would he say, "sin no more"?
If the sin that Moses, God, the Law, and Jesus condemned as a sin deserving of capital punishment was committed, why would he say, "go in peace"?

You think he meant, "you're a filthy adulteress deserving of death, but go in peace and sin no more"?
You make yourself look more and more stupid with every post.


No we're not, idiot. She was guilty. That's not the issue.

If you want to know why Jesus didn't condemn her you need to know the law regarding adultery and execution. Do you? Or do I need to educate you so you'll no longer be an ignoramus?

Listen up, moron.

There's the moral aspect of the law, and there's the judicial aspect of the law. Morally the woman was guilty and answerable to God. There's no forgiveness for this sin under the law, and there never has been. Judicially she was doomed if the Mosaic law was upheld. Jesus said, "he who is without sin cast the first stone". In other words he was saying, if you want to exercise judgment according to the law, go ahead, but are you also guiltless?"

Now stop being an idiot. Present a scriptural argument, you sorry fool.

I can use words like "idiot" and "moron" as well, little man.. I don't want to but if it gives us a mutual understanding of how we feel about each other, maybe you will concentrate more on the debate rather than the name calling.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Then why would he say, "sin no more"?
If the sin that Moses, God, the Law, and Jesus condemned as a sin deserving of capital punishment was committed, why would he say, "go in peace"?
If one is not condemned then there can be no forgiveness. She was guilty, yes, but she was not found guilty nor did she confess. Which means that Jesus could neither condemn or forgive, because He did not have any evidence of her guilt. At least not outside of His ability to know as God.

[quot]You think he meant, "you're a filthy adulteress deserving of death, but go in peace and sin no more"?
You make yourself look more and more stupid with every post.[/quote]
Did I say that? This is why you're an idiot; you choose to be. You make assumptions about what others think and believe and don't ask questions for clarification.

Listen up, moron.

There's the moral aspect of the law, and there's the judicial aspect of the law. Morally the woman was guilty and answerable to God. There's no forgiveness for this sin under the law, and there never has been. Judicially she was doomed if the Mosaic law was upheld. Jesus said, "he who is without sin cast the first stone". In other words he was saying, if you want to exercise judgment according to the law, go ahead, but are you also guiltless?"

Now stop being an idiot. Present a scriptural argument, you sorry fool.
Jesus never said she was forgiven. He also never said she was guilty. He didn't condemn her.

Now you obviously don't know the law, so here goes:

“If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones. Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you. “If a matter arises which is too hard for you to judge, between degrees of guilt for bloodshed, between one judgment or another, or between one punishment or another, matters of controversy within your gates, then you shall arise and go up to the place which the Lord your God chooses. And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, and to the judge there in those days, and inquire of them; they shall pronounce upon you the sentence of judgment. You shall do according to the sentence which they pronounce upon you in that place which the Lord chooses. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they order you. According to the sentence of the law in which they instruct you, according to the judgment which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left from the sentence which they pronounce upon you. Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.
-Deuteronomy 17:2-13


“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.
-Deuteronomy 19:15

The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.”
-Leviticus 20:10

Now, can you tell me why Jesus didn't condemn her?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What does Ex 20:14 say?
That's a start, I guess. :rolleyes:

Not willing to tell us what the law says quite yet, are you?

The Mads are trying to persuade themselves into thinking that the woman caught in the act of adultery cannot be guilty of adultery because there was no official trial.
Are we?

You're not willing to examine the law to find out exactly what was going on, so I guess we'll never know. :idunno:
The fact is, she's guilty with God. The law condems adultery, and so God condemns adultery. Why didn't Jesus?
Why didn't Jesus what?

Why didn't He apply the law? If you would give us the law, the answer to that question would quickly be resolved.

Why didn't he "condemn" adultery? Depends what you mean by "condemn." If you mean "apply the law," then provide the law. If you mean oppose her conduct, He did.

What would swiftly resolve this issue is if you would quote the law. However, after being asked numerous times, you have not got past saying: Adultery is wrong.

The Pharisees challenged Jesus on a point of law. He had to have answered them according to the law, or else their challenge would have stood.

The story doesn't mention Jesus explaining the law to them, so it will take some investigating to find out what likely went down.

Investigations should obviously begin with us knowing what the law says.

What does the law say?

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's a start, I guess. :rolleyes:

Not willing to tell us what the law says quite yet, are you?

Are we?

You're not willing to examine the law to find out exactly what was going on, so I guess we'll never know. :idunno:
Why didn't Jesus what?

Why didn't He apply the law? If you would give us the law, the answer to that question would quickly be resolved.

Why didn't he "condemn" adultery? Depends what you mean by "condemn." If you mean "apply the law," then provide the law. If you mean oppose her conduct, He did.

What would swiftly resolve this issue is if you would quote the law. However, after being asked numerous times, you have not got past saying: Adultery is wrong.

The Pharisees challenged Jesus on a point of law. He had to have answered them according to the law, or else their challenge would have stood.

The story doesn't mention Jesus explaining the law to them, so it will take some investigating to find out what likely went down.

Investigations should obviously begin with us knowing what the law says.

What does the law say?

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
:BRAVO:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
That's a start, I guess. :rolleyes:

Not willing to tell us what the law says quite yet, are you?

Are we?

You're not willing to examine the law to find out exactly what was going on, so I guess we'll never know. :idunno:
Why didn't Jesus what?

Why didn't He apply the law? If you would give us the law, the answer to that question would quickly be resolved.

Why didn't he "condemn" adultery? Depends what you mean by "condemn." If you mean "apply the law," then provide the law. If you mean oppose her conduct, He did.

What would swiftly resolve this issue is if you would quote the law. However, after being asked numerous times, you have not got past saying: Adultery is wrong.

The Pharisees challenged Jesus on a point of law. He had to have answered them according to the law, or else their challenge would have stood.

The story doesn't mention Jesus explaining the law to them, so it will take some investigating to find out what likely went down.

Investigations should obviously begin with us knowing what the law says.

What does the law say?

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Even after I gave it to him he still won't get it.
 

andyc

New member
Looks like you guys need another dose of logic.

So you're determined to cling to the judicial part of the law concerning the woman caught in the act of adultery,
When you're telling me, "do you understand the adultery law", you're saying, "do you understand the judicial part of this law",
Yes I do, but this is irrelevant. Here are the points for you to understand once and for all (hopefully).

This was not an official trial, and wasn't meant to be. Why don't you understand this?
Roman law prevented the Jews from carrying out their own judgments, and this was part of the trap.
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?

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
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.

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?

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?

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.
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?
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.

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.
 

andyc

New member
The Pharisees challenged Jesus on a point of law. He had to have answered them according to the law, or else their challenge would have stood.

The story doesn't mention Jesus explaining the law to them, so it will take some investigating to find out what likely went down.

Investigations should obviously begin with us knowing what the law says.

What does the law say?
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.

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.

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.
 

andyc

New member
So there we have it folks.


This is what happens when people are faced with the facts about the nonsense they believe. If the nonsense is more appealing, they'll cast out the word.

John 3:17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

The reason why adultery was punishable by death, was because God wanted Israel to be a holy nation, and so he demanded that they put away the sin from among them. However, Jesus came to save that which was lost.
 
Top