ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

[musterion]

His perfect life alone would only have accomplished his own salvation.

What?

The law had a claim on everyone else, and this is where atonement is made on our behalf.

By his DEATH and RESURRECTION, not by His life.

 

[Interplanner]

What?



By his DEATH and RESURRECTION, not by His life.

Nope, even getting baptised by John was 'to fulfill all righteousness.' Mt 3:16.

In the sermon on the mount, there is probably a double entendre: he does mean for us to exceed in righteousness, but I think he meant himself, too.

 

[andyc]

You realize that they asked Jesus about the law, right?

They didn't ask Him if He had any special knowledge of the woman'a guilt.
They asked Him concerning the law.
To condemn someone outside the instructions of the law would make one a lawbreaker.
The instructions on how to conduct an inquiry of adultery was specified in the law.
Did they violate the law? Yes.
Did Jesus violate the law? No.

It was not an official trial, and so the details are irrelevant. It was nothing but a trap, pure and simple.
Condemnation of the law can only be forgiven if people believe in Jesus. The accusers didn't believe in Jesus, and so the woman remained under condemnation from their perspective. Understand?
If you remove Jesus out of the equation, your left with condemnation. In a moment of wisdom, Jesus removed the condemnation towards the woman working through the accusers, then he forgave her, because he took her condemnation on himself.

GRACE in other words!

 

[Crucible]

Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

:rotfl:

Those people have no problems with thrashing around other beliefs- particularly Reformed- but nail themselves right on a cross if they receive the same treatment.

They hijacked the Bible and made it into a message it simply is not, and that is why you don't see much beyond frivolous verse spamming with them. Nobody can read good, historical literature and still take MADism seriously.

 

[andyc]

What?

He was born under the law, and identified himself as a man. That means that the law had a claim on him a soon as he was circumcised.
He came through perfectly unscathed, and he took this perfect body, and offered it to God on the alter us.

By his DEATH and RESURRECTION, not by His life.

That's where our atonement is accomplished.

 

[Interplanner]

He was born under the law, and identified himself as a man. That means that the law had a claim on him a soon as he was circumcised.
He came through perfectly unscathed, and he took this perfect body, and offered it to God on the alter us.



That's where our atonement is accomplished.

And it had to be the offering of a Lamb without blemish.

 

[Tambora]

Jesus was the one who fulfilled the law or our behalf.
He took all of the condemnation everyone deserved on himself.

At the cross.
At the time of the adulterous woman, the cross had not taken place yet.

Not to mention that Jesus Christ says that not one jot or title will pass from the law until heaven and earth pass. (Matt 5:18)

And so obviously he couldn't stand by the law and uphold it's condemnation towards those who violated the law,

Obviously He could not abide by their not following the law as instructed on how to conduct an accusation of adultery.

Again, they were not asking Him about His personal opinion; they asked concerning what the law said (ie. OT Mosaic law).

and forgive them at the same time. If he forgave,

Jesus said He did not condemn her.
He says nothing about "forgiving" her.
Jesus could not have condemned her based on the way the inquiry was handled (it was not per the law).

You keep adding the word "forgive" when the scripture does not say that.

You won't be able to do it. So it would better for you to exit the thread to save face.

Show in scripture where it says that Jesus forgave her of her sins.
Why do you use words that scripture does not?

 

[musterion]

There's no sign in the account that the woman was repentant of her sin, or that she even realized Who Christ is, any more than it says He pronounced her forgiven as an extension of grace vs not breaking jot or tittle of His Law.

Too much reading into the incident that which the Text does not say. Just like the Pharisees did.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Andy, TeT, and Crucible are unworthy of being spoken to. They are the "epitome" of "The Three Stooges" on TOL.

They're a very strange combination of a Preterist, a Charismatic/Pentecostal and a Rabid Calvinist. Yet, they've combined their efforts to attack "The Grace Gospel."

 

[Crucible]

The adulterous woman got off because there were no witnesses. Jewish Law was a lot like what Islam's is now- if there is no witness, then there is no prosecution. The Pharisees were overstepping their bounds.

 

[Interplanner]

There's no sign in the account that the woman was repentant of her sin, or that she even realized Who Christ is, any more than it says He pronounced her forgiven as an extension of grace vs not breaking jot or tittle of His Law.

Too much reading into the incident that which the Text does not say. Just like the Pharisees did.

But in Luke 7 and elsewhere, the women were known to have been in many relationships, and the whole point is the forgiveness, not the procedure about the sin of adultery.

 

[Interplanner]

At the cross.
At the time of the adulterous woman, the cross had not taken place yet.

Not to mention that Jesus Christ says that not one jot or title will pass from the law until heaven and earth pass. (Matt 5:18)

Obviously He could not abide by their not following the law as instructed on how to conduct an accusation of adultery.

Again, they were not asking Him about His personal opinion; they asked concerning what the law said (ie. OT Mosaic law).


Jesus said He did not condemn her.
He says nothing about "forgiving" her.
Jesus could not have condemned her based on the way the inquiry was handled (it was not per the law).

You keep adding the word "forgive" when the scripture does not say that.



Show in scripture where it says that Jesus forgave her of her sins.
Why do you use words that scripture does not?

But in Luke 7 and elsewhere, the women were known to have been in many relationships, and the whole point is the forgiveness, not the procedure about the sin of adultery.

 

[musterion]

the whole point is forgiveness

Not in this incident.

 

[Interplanner]

The adulterous woman got off because there were no witnesses. Jewish Law was a lot like what Islam's is now- if there is no witness, then there is no prosecution. The Pharisees were overstepping their bounds.

Make sure you put MALE witness there on Islam.

 

[Interplanner]

Not in this incident.

So go for it; split the hairs between them.

Is forgiving all that different from not condemning?

 

[Tambora]

It was not an official trial,

Which made it unlawful to begin with.

and so the details are irrelevant.

Apparently to you, details are of no importance, so you feel free to change the details of the story.

It was nothing but a trap, pure and simple.

A trap that Jesus could easily avoid because they were not conducting the inquiry according to the law.

Condemnation of the law can only be forgiven if people believe in Jesus.

Nothing in the story of the woman being a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not everyone Jesus helped were believers and followers of Him. (Luke 17:15-17)

You keep adding your own assumptions.

The accusers didn't believe in Jesus, and so the woman remained under condemnation from their perspective. Understand?
If you remove Jesus out of the equation, your left with condemnation. In a moment of wisdom, Jesus removed the condemnation towards the woman working through the accusers, then he forgave her, because he took her condemnation on himself.

GRACE in other words!

The question to Jesus was not whether anyone believed in Him or not. The question was concerning what the law said about handling accusations of adultery. The law being the Mosaic law of the old covenant. Not the law of the new covenant. Jesus hasn't even mentioned the new covenant yet at the time of the adulterous woman.

There was a just way to condemn someone of adultery per the law.
The way they were doing it was unjust and to condemn the woman would have been unjust per the law.

 

[musterion]

The problem doesn't seem to be that there were no witnesses. It says she was caught in the act and He did not dispute that.

The problem, again, is that they did not also bring the man she was caught with (since "in the act" would mean exactly that).

They were, in a very real sense, bearing false witness against her by not bringing the man who by Law bore equal guilt.

Lots of speculation on what He wrote in the dirt. My guess is, He simply wrote Lev 20:10 and emphasized the references to the adulterous man they failed to produce, and possibly also Exo 20:16. There was no way they could spin His reply that would make Him appear guilty of anything, so they slunk away.

 

[Crucible]

Make sure you put MALE witness there on Islam.

Women are historically not trusted, as men see them as manipulators. Take all the false rape allegations coming out of the woodwork, or the fight to literally make an inquisition (guilty until proven innocent) out of relevant allegations :idunno:

 

[musterion]

So go for it; split the hairs between them.

Is forgiving all that different from not condemning?

Under the Law, yes it was. She could not LEGALLY be stoned for what she was being accused of because they broke the very rule they sought Him to enforce (wrongly). That did not make her "not guilty," much less forgiven.

Escaping condemnation on a hypocritical technicality (on the Pharisees' part) does not = her being forgiven.

Do you not think if He had forgiven her, He'd have told her "Your sins are forgiven" just as He did the other woman? But He didn't.

You obviously don't care about that, though. You want all Texts to say what you want them to say, and not say what is inconvenient for you. Because you're a false teacher.

 

[andyc]

At the cross.
At the time of the adulterous woman, the cross had not taken place yet.

Not to mention that Jesus Christ says that not one jot or title will pass from the law until heaven and earth pass. (Matt 5:18)

That's why faith in Chris is essential (Rom 2:12).

Obviously He could not abide by their not following the law as instructed on how to conduct an accusation of adultery.

But he did. He said, "he who is without sin, cast the first stone". In other words he was saying, if you think you qualify as executioners on behalf of the law, and you yourselves are blameless, go ahead and execute judgement.

Again, they were not asking Him about His personal opinion; they asked concerning what the law said (ie. OT Mosaic law).

In order to trap him. If Jesus undermined the Mosaic law, this would expose him as a fraud, from their perspective.

John 9:28 Then they reviled him and said, "You are His disciple, but we are Moses‘ disciples.

Jesus said He did not condemn her.
He says nothing about "forgiving" her.

:chuckle:

So you think she want away condemned as an adulteress under the law, but happy for the fact that Jesus didn't condemn her?
Jesus didn't condemn her as an adulteress, but the law did, even though Jesus was a law enforcer?

Jesus could not have condemned her based on the way the inquiry was handled (it was not per the law).

So you think Jesus was really saying to her, "you're an adulteress worthy of death, but because the trial is not lawful, I've got no choice but to let you off? :chuckle:

You keep adding the word "forgive" when the scripture does not say that.

Was she forgiven?
Was she still under condemnation by the law?

How can Jesus not condemn her, but the law condemn her?
If Jesus is supposed to be enforcing the law, how can he pacify the judicial side of the law by not condemning her?

You're not thinking this through.

Show in scripture where it says that Jesus forgave her of her sins.
Why do you use words that scripture does not?

I used the example in the OP where Jesus forgave a woman of many sins. It's an identical situation.
The pharisee condemned the woman as a sinner, and Jesus agreed with him that her sins were many, but Jesus forgave her of all her sins.

Now, if a person is not under condemnation, logic should tell you that they are forgiven.

Romans 8:1-2 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.

The woman was set free by Christ, and she was no longer condemned. I know you hate it, but accept it.