lftc Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 536 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 323 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/16/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2019 Curious to see if people can see the commandments that were broken in the story of the woman caught in adultery? I'll look up the references for the ones I am thinking of and post them in a few minutes. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauJangles Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 43 Topic Count: 229 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 10,900 Content Per Day: 2.92 Reputation: 12,145 Days Won: 68 Joined: 02/13/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1954 Share Posted August 31, 2019 5 minutes ago, lftc said: I'll look up the references for the ones I am thinking of and post them in a few minutes. Okay, I'll be waiting. Lunchtime is in 20 minutes though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauJangles Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 43 Topic Count: 229 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 10,900 Content Per Day: 2.92 Reputation: 12,145 Days Won: 68 Joined: 02/13/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1954 Share Posted August 31, 2019 What commandments were broken in the story of the woman caught in adultery? Exodus 20:14 14Thou shalt not commit adultery KJV And one or more of these perhaps. Leviticus 18:7-17 King James Version (KJV) 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. 9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. 11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. 17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. King James Version (KJV) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.20 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2019 Where was the man in all of this? Those who were all set to stone her neglected the partner in adultery. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lftc Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 536 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 323 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/16/2019 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 (edited) I see a few classes of law breaking happening in this story: Alleged violations - obviously, the woman "caught in adultery" which if adjudicated properly would violate Lev 18:20. I say alleged because the accusers have not yet complied with the law . - the man with whom she is alleged to have had sex is not present. Law requires both parties. Clear violations - the accusers are bringing allegations before Jesus to act as judge, and ask him to pronounce judgement without presenting witnesses. See Deut 19:15 "One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." The following verses pronounce severe judgement on those abusing the witness system: they must suffer the punishment of the crime they are accusing the defendent. So in this case, if they allege that she was "caught" in adultery (the only way it can be prosecuted is to be caught in the act by 2 OR 3 other people) but then do not have 2 OR 3 witnesses that stand up to the righteous judges evaluation, those doing the alleging must be stoned. That would sure clean up the travesties of law that take place in every country now. - the accusers are violating the commandment against mob rule in Exodus 23:2 "Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd" They could also be attempting to trap Jesus into doing this. Wonder how this effects the news programs throughout the world... potential violations - If Jesus had fallen for their very clever trap he would either have violated the law by judging someone without witnesses, or by excersing mercy, which was not permitted by the Law. So he said nothing. Godlike cleverness. - also if Jesus had pronounced judgement without witnesses he would have violated the law about mob rule. But instead he wrote on the ground. Does no one accuse you? No one, sir Neither do I accuse you. Edited August 31, 2019 by lftc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lftc Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 536 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 323 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/16/2019 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 52 minutes ago, BeauJangles said: What commandments were broken in the story of the woman caught in adultery? Exodus 20:14 14Thou shalt not commit adultery KJV And one or more of these perhaps. Leviticus 18:7-17 King James Version (KJV) 7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness. 9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover. 10 The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness. 11 The nakedness of thy father's wife's daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister: she is thy father's near kinswoman. 13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister: for she is thy mother's near kinswoman. 14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt. 15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. 16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness. 17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness. King James Version (KJV) Yes, I see your point - there could be several different factors to the act of sex that are violations of these listed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauJangles Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 43 Topic Count: 229 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 10,900 Content Per Day: 2.92 Reputation: 12,145 Days Won: 68 Joined: 02/13/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1954 Share Posted August 31, 2019 40 minutes ago, lftc said: Clear violations - the accusers are bringing allegations before Jesus to act as judge, and ask him to pronounce judgement without presenting witnesses. See Deut 19:15 "One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." Well, apparently there were witnesses. And they violated one or more of the Levitical Laws by seeing what was not allowed for them to see. This would have included some form of nakedness as well. John 8:3-4 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. KJV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lftc Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 536 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 323 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/16/2019 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, BeauJangles said: Well, apparently there were witnesses. And they violated one or more of the Levitical Laws by seeing what was not allowed for them to see. This would have included some form of nakedness as well. John 8:3-4 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. KJV I see what you are saying, that it can be assumed that there are witnesses present. As it is an assumption, it is also assumable that they are not there since the witnesses are not presented in the story. I tend to take the second assumption as the strict nature of adherence to the Law, and the extremely strict interpretation of Law at the time of the Christ, would make that point a very important point to document. Remember that the Law says "there is NO crime" if there are not 2 OR 3 witnesses. Yet the crowd is asking Jesus to judge her guilty without presenting the witnesses. Naturally, I could be wrong. You already know that - I want you to know that I know that. Edited August 31, 2019 by lftc left out a very important "not" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lftc Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 536 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 323 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/16/2019 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 (edited) 51 minutes ago, lftc said: I see what you are saying, that it can be assumed that there are witnesses present. As it is an assumption, it is also assumable that they are not there since the witnesses are not presented in the story. I tend to take the second assumption as the strict nature of adherence to the Law, and the extremely strict interpretation of Law at the time of the Christ, would make that point a very important point to document. Remember that the Law says "there is NO crime" if there are not 2 OR 3 witnesses. Yet the crowd is asking Jesus to judge her guilty without presenting the witnesses. Naturally, I could be wrong. You already know that - I want you to know that I know that. Sorry to quote myself but I thought I should expand my explanation a bit to make it more clear. The Law is very emphatic about preventing conviction of improperly accused crimes. I already pointed to this passage from the law, but now I will copy it into the post in full. The passage is emphatic that the judges must investigate the witnesses. There must be 2 OR 3. If the witnesses are found to be false they must be punished as the original defendent would have been, an eye for an eye, etc. The Law says that the evil of false witnesses must be purged out of the land. And the Law says that once the execute the first false witness, it won't happen again. First in KJV as brother BeauJangles prefers: 15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. 21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Now in NIV for those that prefer it: 15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. 16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, 17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Edited August 31, 2019 by lftc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lftc Posted August 31, 2019 Group: Senior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 536 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 323 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/16/2019 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 31, 2019 1 minute ago, lftc said: The Law is very emphatic about preventing conviction of improperly accused crimes. The passage is emphatic that the judges must investigate the witnesses. As Jesus was being approached by those who would adjudicate the law, and he is in the location where the law is to be adjudicated (the temple courts) the question posed to him is a law question. And since they left (oldest first) after he makes his great and powerful statement and writes on the ground, she was then freed, which indicates that the question to Jesus was her hearing. Which then means that the all the Law was in full force, which means that the 2 OR 3 witnesses had to be presented. I know some of you are, of course, concerned about why I am asking this. Maybe I am trying to trap you like the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. I wanted to point out the laws that apply. I think they are very important. I think it is amazingly powerful to see Jesus in action as an expert in the Law, especially before the Crucifixion and all that that means. What a great awesome High Priest we now have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts