ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
The woman was being accused of adultery only.
On the adultery accusation, they were asking Jesus about what the law said.
They thought He would surely uphold the law.
And He did. It was they that didn't.

A proper legal case had not been presented correctly per the law.
Under the law, she could not be condemned without a proper legal case.
In their zeal to trip up Jesus per the law, they tripped themselves up by not following the law.
 

tetelestai

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

Use the other sinful woman in Luke 7 as the example.

Christ Jesus said the following to her:

(Luke 7:48) Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven...
 

musterion

Well-known member
Use the other sinful woman in Luke 7 as the example.

Christ Jesus said the following to her:


(Luke 7:48) Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven...

And why?
37 A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. 38 As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them. . .

50 Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

He did not tell that woman "Go and sin no more," He pronounced her forgiven because of her faith.

He did NOT say that to the adulteress, who showed (as far as recorded) no sign of repentance or of faith. What He DID tell he amounts to, "Don't do it again!" because next time there probably won't be a technicality.

You are not worthy to handle the Word of God.
 

andyc

New member
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.

All of that is irrelevant to the important fact that, the law condemned the woman as an adulteress, but Jesus didn't.
Does this mean that she was forgiven by Jesus or not?
If not, you must be saying that, although Jesus didn't condemn her, she was stilled condemned under the law as an adulteress.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
IP and Andy are lawless.

No, it's your MAD that is the problem.

You have been brainwashed into believing no one received grace and forgiveness before Paul, and that no one received the wrath of God after Paul.

That's why you deny the grace and forgivness given to people by Jesus Himself before Paul, and why you deny the wrath of God upon the Jews in 70AD after Paul.

You're MAD is a mess.
 

musterion

Well-known member
You have been brainwashed into believing no one received grace and forgiveness before Paul, and that no one received the wrath of God after Paul.

No MAD that I'm aware of believes anything like that outside of, maybe, Acts 28 universalists, who are not represented (afaik) on TOL. But you keep on lying about us.

Besides, you're the one who says the wrath of God was fully spent in 70 and so we're now in the Kingdom of Christ whether it looks like it or not.

That's why you deny the grace and forgivness given to people by Jesus Himself before Paul, and why you deny the wrath of God upon the Jews in 70AD after Paul.

Keep lying. You'll answer for it.

You're MAD is a mess.

We'll see.
 

andyc

New member
Show where she was repentant and that He told her she was forgiven, and we'll accept it.

What's the alternative?

The law condemned the woman as an adulteress, but Jesus didn't condemn her?
This shows a conflict of attitudes between the law and Jesus, when from your perspective they're supposed to be in agreement.
If she's an adulteress condemned under the law, what were her options if she was repentant?

According to you, there were no options. She was doomed.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So you think she want away condemned as an adulteress under the law,
No, silly.
Per the law, one is not condemned unless proven guilty per the law.
They were not following the law as instructed for an adultery accusation.

Trying to do away with the law in this instance is ludicrous.
The whole ordeal was concerning the law.
 

andyc

New member
She saw and acknowledged Who and What He was. The adulteress, as far as is recorded, did not.

How hard is that for you to understand?

Because there is no forgiveness for the adulteress under the law. So what was the basis for Jesus to forgive her?
 

musterion

Well-known member
What's the alternative?

The law condemned the woman as an adulteress, but Jesus didn't condemn her?

COULDN'T condemn her. Without the man present, He would have violated His own Law by condemning her.

This shows a conflict of attitudes between the law and Jesus, when from your perspective they're supposed to be in agreement.

No it doesn't.

If she's an adulteress condemned under the law, what were her options if she was repentant?

According to you, there were no options. She was doomed.

The woman may have believed later. Maybe she didn't. We can't know.

But as far as what the Record DOES say, she appears to have gone away in unbelief. Relieved that she wasn't stoned, sure, and maybe convicted...but no indication she repented, so no indication that He forgave her.

Sorry you don't like that that's what it says, but that's what it says.
 

Interplanner

New member
COULDN'T condemn her. Without the man present, He would have violated His own Law by condemning her.



No it doesn't.



The woman may have believed later. Maybe she didn't. We can't know.

But as far as what the Record DOES say, she appears to have gone away in unbelief. Relieved that she wasn't stoned, sure, and maybe convicted...but no indication she repented, so no indication that He forgave her.

Sorry you don't like that that's what it says, but that's what it says.


Does Jesus say 'go now and stop sinning' to people he has not forgiven?
 

andyc

New member
No, silly.
Per the law, one is not condemned unless proven guilty per the law.
They were not following the law as instructed for an adultery accusation.

They were not intending it to be an official trial. If the woman was caught in the act of adultery, and Jesus didn't challenge this, what would this mean for the woman if the Mosaic law were to be applied?
Now, if they were intending to take this all the way, they could have done, and she would have been put to death if they were not under Roman occupation. The witnesses would have been gathered, the man would have been brought along as well etc etc.
What the pharisees wanted, was for Jesus to either agree with the Mosaic law, or be exposed as a fraud. Every commentary on the planet, and every study bible will tell you this because it's so obvious. But it's devastating to mad.

Trying to do away with the law in this instance is ludicrous.
The whole ordeal was concerning the law.

Yeah, the law condemns adulterers and adulteresses.
 

musterion

Well-known member
Because there is no forgiveness for the adulteress under the law. So what was the basis for Jesus to forgive her?

How was David forgiven his adultery, murder, covetousness, etc?

What's the one clear, Biblical difference between David and the adulterous woman?

(and it isn't that David was a man or the king, either)
 
Top