Adulterous woman

[Drich]

the passage in john explain the entrapment in a different way.. so you are 1/2 right.. yes they said according to the law of moses we should stone her. but roman authority would not allow such an execution. which they could parlay with the roman government into having him executed for trying to execute this woman.. or if he went against the law of moses could could then be identified as a false profit. so yes your 1/2 right the answer given though cited deut 17 which again requires the person doing the stoning/the accuser to also be in good standing with God or he too would be executed. not really a loop hole. but rather the law prevented evil men from manipulating the law to get their way. which is why those men dropped their stones. as they too could be found to be 'evil' for persecuting this woman with all the sin jesus was spelling out on the ground.

Yes, the christian passage in a christian book asserts a christian concept of law and the subjugation of the pharisees to a christian god...... surprise.  You'd have to be a cultist, and conveniently are a cultist, to believe that it happened in mere reality.

that is because you have not read the bible. and or you do not know the ot law well enough to make this call.

So again what happened here is based on the laws provided by moses which has three parts to it. the first says a death penalty violation must be witnessed by two or more people..

Then accuser primary must be the first to throw a stone.

the law also states they must be in good standing with God.

So here is what happened: a sinful men/pharisees brought a woman before christ caught in adultery. this only satisfy 1/3 of the law's requirements for stoning. In that a capital crime/sin was witnessed by two people. here is where you and the pharisees jumped the gun. because they were charging jesus with whether or not she should die when the accuser/witness was to make that call. they did this to entrap him.

so hebrew priest violation 1. A violation Jesus quickly identifies, and afford him time to write out their own sins.

And the 3 part of this law is the accuser must also be in good standing with God as they are commanded to purge all evil from among them. which is why jesus was writing on the ground a list of sins so great their guilt forced them to walk away.

now because Jesus was in good standing with God apparently the only one there who was in full compliance with God's law. and because he did not witness the crime like the pharisees did. he released her as he who could throw a stone didn't actually witness this sin.

Yes, our trickster hero got a whore out of a jam on a technicality.  He's a friend of women, you see.  Obviously, we wouldn't want our christian god to be a dummy that gets stumped by a gaggle of elderly jewish shamans.

there is far more documentation in period manuscript that says it did, than any that challenge it.

Yes, yes..we know...

again sport this story work so precisely with in the law with it's specific detail, no other outcome besides death could be possible if jesus did not know the hebrew laws so well. this story carefully navigates the hebrew law in away that only students of the law could fully appreciate. it is steeped with mastery and irony that you clearly you do not see. this would force any contemporary jewish rabbi in the same situation to yield the same way the Pharisees did, given the same details if they too observed the ot law as it was written. you don't seem to understand the main crux of any propaganda is there is very little truth or substance. here for anyone who has studied the OT law knows the depths the ot laws were used to "best" and humiliate these priests using the law provided by the OT. truthfully all bias aside, if this did not happen as described here, only a master rabbi could have written such a story to the extent and depth this was written. you know how some say i write in a 'gottacha' into my posts. there are at least 4 point where jesus 'got' the pharisees by using the law as it was written against them. and if you don't see that.. then youre not in a place to critique this story.

Yeah, the person who wrote it probably was somewhere between jewish and christian.  :   shrugs   :.....?

but based firmly in a culture that is verified by historians, (this sort of thing happened)  in a copy of hebrew law we still have access today, (we can verify what how jesus used the law)  with NO period correct detractors. (nothing from the time period which given all the different preists who could read and write and had access or ways to store their written works) kinda says this is more than a whimsical story treatment.

The story gives itself the treatment numbskull.  It announces itself as a theological narrative vehicle.  Which is fine, completely fine.  It leads you to exactly the conclusion that christianity desires.  Mission accomplished.  Bullshitting people about it, though, is optional.  You do you, and have fun accounting for false prophecy when you meet Jeezy Creezy.  Having known you for some time, I doubt you'll fare better than the pharisees.

lol... i guess this is about as good as i can expect from you. you get it albeit with the devils glasses slant.. I wasn't going to really say anything till your last bit. did you even think about the implication of your statement? 

If i am a known quantity, and the net result is a fate worse than that of the pharisees is an absolute. then that places you in the singular position to judge. which makes you christ.

Dang son.. even i dont have the tentacular fortitude  to claim or forcast the fate of another living soul. That's infact the very reason i am here. because IDK who ultimately will be saved. which is why despite personal feelings and fresh insults and constant barrage of hate i treat each question with full respect and reverence it is due. (even if i poop on the person asking from time to time) ... because i don't know. heck you could an assistant to the regional manager in heaven.

---

Enticed by thread title.

Disappointed by thread contents.

excited by the star trekean potential of the username. kinda meh-ed by the avatar.. almost embarrassed for member's lack of decorum (dis aint no peep show)