Who said they didn't and weren't?
Do you believe that those gratuitous details belie Jesus's point?
Or are you just ducking and dodging..per the usual?
Are You Qualified to be the Executioner?
- Thread starter CabinetMaker
- Start date
Who said they didn't and weren't?
Do you believe that those gratuitous details belie Jesus's point?
Or are you just ducking and dodging..per the usual?
Read above.
Are you really not able to make the connection? Quit being so obtuse.
They claimed to be witnesses to a crime.
The law says that the witnesses should be among the first (next to the victims) to cast stones.
They refused to stone her, which discredits them as witnesses.
Which fits what the passage says, that they were trying to trick Jesus.
So? :doh: That has nothing to do with the moral gist of his answer. It only exemplifies the consistent, compassionate wisdom of it.
Which was perfectly in line with the law.
If there are no witnesses, or just one witness, you cannot establish guilt.
There were no witnesses, therefore she could not be found guilty of anything. Therefore she was let go.
Then Jesus's 8:7 scripture quote has no context.
Is it your contention that Jesus spouts off worthless discussion?
What scripture was Jesus quoting, Quip?
I simply read scripture as is, and take it at face value. I don't try to read things into the text.
:doh: You know, the oft quoted one... the one that's been oft referenced here in this thread.
Yep, scripture may all too easily be spinned in favor of a particular rationalization and/or agenda.
Such be the "face-value" of things here. I'll simply leave it at that.
"In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such a woman..."
What part of this English translation has you confused?
Nothing. I've read the law. They were wrong.
Pretty simple, huh? They said she should have been stoned, the law said otherwise. :up:
If you had followed the conversation, you'd know this.
I follow it quite well.
Judicious application of the law was Jesus's point, not to blindly render it; administering the law by more than rote understanding and engagement...as many here are more than pleased to disregard.
"[9] And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst."
Not simple enough for you, huh?
Think of that... it actually requires effort! :idea:
And yet you repeated all the dumb talking points that have been addressed numerous times.
Looks like you're just making things up.
Regardless, the law says what it says. The woman could not have been justly convicted by it.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
And yet you repeated all the dumb talking points that have been addressed numerous times.
Looks like you're just making things up.
Regardless, the law says what it says. The woman could not have been justly convicted by it.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
So, "following the law" is actually easier for you than thinking for yourself?
I get it...I really do. You're a spiritual sloth, a true lamb of God, replete with the flock animal's gift for intellectual rigor, discernment and compassion.
This is just nonsense platitude.
The law says what it says. My motives are irrelevant.
The woman could not have been justly convicted by it.
:yawn:
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
That's what you can't seem to get through your thick head. No one performs actions/decisions in a vacuum. Your (everyone's) actions impact others, they play a vital role in dictating the direction of our collective consciousness.
Do you want to live in a mindless brute driven "eye-for-an-eye" world or a compassionate one?
I choose the latter...thus I'm committed in seeing the brute evolve.
It's your choice though Stripe. :idunno:
Wash, Rinse, repeat as necessary........
Sounds like you want to disagree. Here's an idea, quote the law and show us how she could have been rightly convicted.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk