Adulterous woman

[Drich]

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

. . . .

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.

Where is your scriptural support for this point?  Since John 8 is the passage in question, you can't use John 8, as that would be circular.  What scripture supports this?

I established the law/the three points concerning stoning in my first post with a link to a study from got questions which gives all scripture on the subject and a explanation. I did that so all who want to have an informed discussion can start at the same place.

I read the article you cited, and it does nothing to support your point.  Perhaps you're simply not explaining it well.

appearently you did not understand what was read or looked at the verses provided.

point one i made: there must be two witnesses: from the got questions website which quotes the book of deut: The Mosaic Law specified that, before anyone could be put to death by stoning, there had to be a trial, and at least two witnesses had to testify: “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness” (Deuteronomy 17:6).

point two i made, was the witness/accusor must throw the fist stone. the very next line says: Those witnesses “must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people” (verse 7). In other words, those who testified against the condemned person in court had to cast the first stone.

and the third point i made was one must be in good standing with God. the implication being that only the righteous can stone others or be in the position to make that call otherwise if they were not pure they themselves would be purged/stoned. and the quoted web page you claimed did not support anything i said seems to support my claims just find as this is the last paragraph:
Stoning is a horrible way to die. That particular manner of execution must have been a strong deterrent against committing the sins deemed offensive enough to merit stoning. God cares very much about the purity of His people. The strict punishment for sin during the time of the Law helped deter people from adopting the impure practices of their pagan neighbors and rebelling against God. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and Israel was given a stern commandment to stay pure: “You must purge the evil from among you” (Deuteronomy 17:7).
now the question is, did you lie when you claimed to read the reference material i provided? did you not understand what you read? or are you so biased truth has no bearing on how you think?
https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-stoning.html
please dont bother with questions if you do not care what the answer is, and are just waiting for your turn to talk again.

If I recall right, though, the new covenant means that getting right with God simply means having faith in Jesus.

no. two things. one Jesus has not died at this point to establish this new covenant which means the pharisees are currently under the old law which is why i quoted the old law. (blood is requirement to seal the deal on a covenant) AND even under the new purposed covenant, there is an element you are missing which Jesus talks in depth about.

 Probably something a Pharisee can't accomplish, but not something they would acknowledge either.

not while trying to entrap Jesus, by having a woman stoned. these are evil acts and manipulation of God's law to try and force a political enemy's hand in breaking the law of the current government. God is no fool.

 So your argument is that the law could not be carried out by persons who had sinned.  

two things i'm not pointing this out, John 8 is literally spelling this out for you in every single act and detail of this story. Two Jesus did not run these Pharisees off. he wrote out their own sins on the ground and john 8 says their own conscience forced them to leave, because they knew they were in violation of deut 17:7 (they were not in good standing and they too would be purged/stoned.) no matter what you want to argue, the point is they left as they knew they did not have a right to take a life of this woman without forfeiting their own life.

I see a problem with that in that the law would never be carried out, as the New Testament makes clear, all have sinned.  Yet, I suspect the law was carried out.  How do you explain that paradox?

they were not under the new testament they were under the old. which means 2/3s of sin could be forgiven on the spot with ritual animal sacrifice. however there was also capital sin which requires stoning. the idea here in john 8 is these accusers have secretly committed capital sin, and only they knew about. but forgot god sees all.

Jesus being the son of God was also privy to this, and was why he was writing out these sins on the ground without calling anyone out directly (4% literary rate the average joe would not understand but the priest did) while we can be sure they were cleansed by ritual sacrifice of the small sins, they were not absolved/in good standing with God on the larger sins.


(ETA: It also occurs to me that even if the witnesses should be stoned for their sins, since Jesus is the only witness to their sin, and the law requires two witnesses, Jesus' calling out their sins was without any practical effect.)
[/quote]
maybe the sins were bad enough that the mere accusation was enough for them to have all rank and privilege stripped from them even without a trial.. maybe they were all 'racists' or slave owners or misogynists' maybe they were closet republicans.. thats enough to have someone stoned now a days right?

or

if jesus knew what they had done he would also know when they would do it again.. as capitol sins are rarely a one and done kind of sin.