Jesus violated the law!

[Jayne]

4 hours ago, Markie51 said:

 

 

Deleted by Jayne

Edited January 22, 2023 by Jayne

[David1701]

6 minutes ago, Jayne said:

I think most know that this story is not in the most ancient of texts.  Every modern version that I read has this story, but has a disclaimer that it is not in the oldest manuscripts.

No, the man is not mentioned because these accusers did not bring him - their first violation of the law.

I don't think Jesus was tacitly reminding the men of their sexual misconduct.

I think Jesus was reminding them of the three laws that THEY violated:

• The law said that in cases of adultery, the man AND the woman were to be stoned.  Leviticus 20:10.  Only the woman was there.
• The law said that the witnesses were to be the first to throw the stones.  Deuteronomy 17:7.  No witnesses were given - no testimony made.  No legal judgment made.  Just a mob accusation.
• The law said that there musts be "diligent inquiry" into major offenses using priests/judges.  Deuteronomy 17:8-13. There was no trial and Jesus was NOT an earthly priest, judge, or legal authority.  Even though he was and is the LORD of the universe.

 

 

You cannot trust the translation/textual criticism notes, the omissions and alterations, in the modern Bible versions.  They are designed to induce doubt and toleration of error in the readers.

We certainly should trust the passage about the woman caught in adultery.

Edited January 22, 2023 by David1701

[other one]

On 1/14/2023 at 2:22 AM, Roymond said:

We read the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery and rejoice in His judgment:  "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", and finally "Neither do I condemn you".  But there's a little detail in that story that doesn't get mentioned, one that points to why the Romans hated and feared and persecuted the early Christians:  when Jesus told her to go, He broke two laws -- the law of the land of Israel, which said adultery was a crime, and the law of Rome, which said the same.

There were set procedures of that was supposed to happen when someone was accused of adultery.   Those who brought her to Jesus to condemn did not follow the law and procedure and that's what Jesus was pointing out to them.

His writing in the sand was part of that procedure and what he wrote the second time was against those accusing the woman.    And those accusing slowly realized what Jesus was doing was showing what they were doing was a sin.     And as they thought about it they individually walked away.   They all in the end understood what Jesus was doing.

Could Jesus accuse her....    don't think he was there so he did not accuse her either, but told her to stop what she was doing.

To really understand what was happening one needs to know of the customs and ways of how things were done and the overall ways of the time.    And not just take single verses of scripture and divorce them from the context of what was really happening at the time and who it involves at the time.

Not everything that is written in the Bible is written for each of us today.   It is the history and context of those things that do pertain to us today.

[Jayne]

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

 

Deleted by Jayne.  

Edited January 22, 2023 by Jayne

[David1701]

1 hour ago, Jayne said:

I didn't say that I didn't trust the story.  I merely stated that it is not in the oldest of manuscripts and some Bibles tell you that.

No doubt.  No toleration of error.

What was the point of stating that John 7:53-8:11 is not in some of the earliest manuscripts, if not to cast doubt on it?  Why not rather say that 85% of extant Greek manuscripts, not to mention the Latin stream, which dates from the 2nd C. A.D., contain it (if you feel the need to comment on the textual criticism at all)?

Saying that some of the earliest manuscripts do not contain it, might put doubt in young Christian's minds, the implication being "earliest is best", which is mostly not true at all.

Edited January 22, 2023 by David1701

[other one]

BTW it would be fine with me if we left it out of all of the Bibles for too many people misuse that verse about let he who has no sin cast the first stone.  It's ripped out of context and used for things it should not be.

[David1701]

33 minutes ago, other one said:

BTW it would be fine with me if we left it out of all of the Bibles for too many people misuse that verse about let he who has no sin cast the first stone.  It's ripped out of context and used for things it should not be.

It should not be "fine" with any born again Christian, to leave out parts of the inspired word of God.  God put them there for a reason.

[Jayne]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

What was the point of stating that John 7:53-8:11 is not in some of the earliest manuscripts, if not to cast doubt on it? 

I wasn't the one who brought that up. I was just telling someone that  - yes - most of us knew that.

Good gravy!  I'll delete since you think I'm causing harm.  

I'm sorry that you believe that parts of the Word of God has been "deleted".  

[other one]

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

It should not be "fine" with any born again Christian, to leave out parts of the inspired word of God.  God put them there for a reason.

so the devil could twist minds to misuse them.

I would still leave them out for i don't trust the manuscripts that come from Alexandria.

[David1701]

5 hours ago, Jayne said:

I wasn't the one who brought that up. I was just telling someone that  - yes - most of us knew that.

Good gravy!  I'll delete since you think I'm causing harm.  

I'm sorry that you believe that parts of the Word of God has been "deleted".  

I did not say that you were causing harm.  I said that what you posted could cause harm.

The word of God is intact, in the TR; but, it is certainly true that the so-called "Critical Text" has altered or deleted many verses, or parts of verses.

What is it with some people on this forum?  There are frequent misrepresentations and hardly any apologies.