(June 12, 2021 at 12:15 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: John 8:1-11 tells us how Jews wanted to stone an adulterous woman but Jesus told them not to, and therefore they didn't.

But why would Jews ask Jesus whether they should obey the Torah or not?! And then listen to him?

Compliance with Mosaic Law was not a joke. It was rigorously enforced; after all, that was what public stoning was for.

It's like if today law enforcement officers strap a convict to the electric chair in Kentucky to execute him, but someone, who has nothing to do with the judiciary system, says "Don't do it" and they don't do it.

Something to note: even if this was a real event (and, given that it doesn't even appear in the earliest texts, there's a good chance it probably wasn't even part of the original stories), this probably wasn't an actual judicial punishment. According to the Talmud, there was a specific set of rules governing capital punishment and a stupefyingly high burden of proof for these cases. They were just short of being so self-contradictory that the death penalty could never be carried out, but it was hard enough that if a particular court carried out more than one execution in the span of I'm not sure how long (I've heard the number being between 10 and 70 years), it would be branded a "killer court." And furthermore, at some point in the time generally concurrent with the early ministry of Jesus (the traditional date given is about 28 CE,) capital punishment ceased.

I'm inclined to think the people Jesus encountered were vigilantes. I know there are ultra-orthodox Jews in modern Israel who take it upon themselves to attack lawbreakers, and I can remember listening to the DVD commentary to Bruno and hearing Sacha Baron Cohen describing going to Israel and encountering a gang of them and being so terrified that he ACTUALLY BROKE CHARACTER in an attempt at sparing himself. Surprisingly, it turns out dressing like a Sexy Hasid and telling a gang of people who want to kill you that you actually are Jewish only gets them madder. I'm not sure if these are recent developments related to the massive clusterfuck that's kind of an inherent consequence of creating a Jewish homeland in the modern Middle East filled with enemies who want them dead or if shit like that also happened in the days of the Roman occupation, but I find that it makes more sense if you assume that the men who want to stone the woman are vigilantes taking the law in your own hands.

Imagine juxtaposing this version of the scene (easily my favourite depiction of this story; it's a wonder what actually showing the audience what Jesus would have actually told them can do for a story): 




With this scene from To Kill a Mockingbird:




Kind of makes it clearer, doesn't it? Telling people executing a guy in Kentucky to not do it and them deciding to do so is implausible. But going up to a gang of vigilantes and calling them out on their bullshit and hypocrisy before they can kill some woman, that sounds a lot more plausible to me. It might be like the old story about how Humpty Dumpty was a cannon that lived atop a castle until it fell and broke beyond repair and not an egg, but it still makes a lot of sense.

(June 23, 2021 at 8:54 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: this probably wasn't an actual judicial punishment. According to the Talmud, there was a specific set of rules governing capital punishment and a stupefyingly high burden of proof for these cases. They were just short of being so self-contradictory that the death penalty could never be carried out, but it was hard enough that if a particular court carried out more than one execution in the span of I'm not sure how long

It seems that stoning was a punishment, although later on it did was "abandoned" in a way that it was made self-contradictory. From Wikipedia:

Quote:Stoning appears to have been the standard method of capital punishment in ancient Israel. Its use is attested in the early Christian era, but Jewish courts generally avoided stoning sentences in later times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning

So perhaps this is the reason why this story appears: it was put there when Jews were abandoning stoning as capital punishment.

(June 12, 2021 at 12:15 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: John 8:1-11 tells us how Jews wanted to stone an adulterous woman but Jesus told them not to, and therefore they didn't.

But why would Jews ask Jesus whether they should obey the Torah or not?! And then listen to him?

Compliance with Mosaic Law was not a joke. It was rigorously enforced; after all, that was what public stoning was for.

It's like if today law enforcement officers strap a convict to the electric chair in Kentucky to execute him, but someone, who has nothing to do with the judiciary system, says "Don't do it" and they don't do it.

The answer is pretty simple really, they weren't acting in accordance to Mosaic law since it clearly states that BOTH the man and woman were to be stoned.

“If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. - Deuteronomy 22:22

Since they stated they caught the woman in the act, where was the man?

(June 24, 2021 at 11:06 am)Huggy Bear Wrote: The answer is pretty simple really, they weren't acting in accordance to Mosaic law since it clearly states that BOTH the man and woman were to be stoned.

“If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. - Deuteronomy 22:22

Since they stated they caught the woman in the act, where was the man?

That is one of the problems of the story, which are indicators that the story never happened. The fact that there is no man is equally nonsensical as people listening to Jesus on these matters. Like, if they were obviously not acting in accordance to Mosaic law, why wouldn't Jesus notice it and point it out?

(June 21, 2021 at 4:14 pm)Drich Wrote: even more luckily-er.. i dont care about what you don't give a shite about.

oh and btw i do get what your avatar represents, but obvi, not to degree you have, as you clearly found your own meaning. whatever snowflake reason you chose to have Baruch Spinoza im sure it is to meant to display how pompous and smart you think yourself to be allowing you to make one or two line comments but to instill if bothered you could unleashe hell on a stupid person.. 

like i said before.. kinda meh-ed by the avatar. (as you fall into a common better than thou stereotype) 

That's cool, man. You don't have to give a shit about my avatar. You can be "meh-ed" by it. What I said before was more about opining about things without having sufficient knowledge.

I don't get the snowflake thing, though.

Truth be told, Spinoza was a person of extraordinary character, and I strive to be as sagely and noble as he was. That's what I meant about you not knowing shit about what he represents...

(June 20, 2021 at 8:03 pm)Mercyvessel Wrote: “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” - 1 Corinthians 2:14

We could all go on and on... but after all is said and done - the contentions over perspectives, nuances, etc, etc... the irrefutable bottom line (if you care to really investigate) is that - Christian or not & believe it or not - Biblical prophecy continues to be fulfilled to the present day as people continue to deny to the very end of the age (or the end of one's time on this planet).

--------

"While it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation." - Hebrews 3:15

“But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” – James 4:6

“Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” - Revelation 1:7-8

You're not going to get us to believe in bullshit by throwing it liberally at the forums.

(June 24, 2021 at 12:42 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(June 24, 2021 at 11:06 am)Huggy Bear Wrote: The answer is pretty simple really, they weren't acting in accordance to Mosaic law since it clearly states that BOTH the man and woman were to be stoned.

“If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel. - Deuteronomy 22:22

Since they stated they caught the woman in the act, where was the man?

That is one of the problems of the story, which are indicators that the story never happened. The fact that there is no man is equally nonsensical as people listening to Jesus on these matters. Like, if they were obviously not acting in accordance to Mosaic law, why wouldn't Jesus notice it and point it out?

I get the impression that if they were actually following Mosaic Law, Jesus wouldn’t have batted an eye.

To me, it makes more sense if you assume they weren’t following Mosaic Law. Especially since the Sanhedrin IRL had stupefyingly high standards of proof for capital punishment  


and they were most likely in the process of abandoning it anyway around that time. As I said earlier, I think it makes sense if you see this as a vigilante mob killing a woman and not a capital punishment in progress. And that Jesus’ rebukes worked because he’s calling them out on their hypocrisy. Perhaps if he was as intimidating in this scene as Willem Dafoe, it would have helped even more.

It’s a far more Watsonian explanation than a Doylist one, but, then again, a Doylist explanation would probably just leave it at “this probably didn’t happen, what with it not appearing in the manuscripts until fairly late.” And where’s the fun in that?

Seems that we might sometimes tie ourselves into knots trying to come up with a historic explanation for a legendary narrative. It's fairly clear that the authors of the story no longer believed that the jewish authorities were following the law..it's strange to imagine that a person creating a new god wouldn't think that. They still needed to borrow the ladder, as a practical matter, and so we get the tortured narrative which, when stripped of it's explicitly theological content establishing the authority of godman, has no detail whatsoever.

It never happened, there is no explanation for why a meeting between people who didn't exist, a meeting which never happened, would go any one way or another. The story, however, went the way it went because that's the message the author intended to convey, full stop. That jesus..the jesus in this story, isn't part of "the historical jesus".

Interesting that the font of all Mercy and Justice couldn't manage "Murdering people is bad."

When you recall that, historically, christians were a terrorist sympathizing cult, it's easy to see why he didn't.

We're talking about the character that invented a hell for his political enemies, after all.