kittygirl
03-27-2007, 06:01 PM
Well, irregardless of anything you have done (past tense), God always forgives. I don't understand, it's just His nature.

Secondly, a certain story of the bible:the woman who was caught in the act of adultry. I doubt that she would just run back to the man whom she was with, and go back to her old mindsets and ways.

skynes
03-27-2007, 11:28 PM
I doubt that she would just run back to the man whom she was with, and go back to her old mindsets and ways.

Since the entire situation was a SET UP to pull something on Jesus, I doubt she'd run back either.


---

If you wanna know how I kno it's a set up. The Pharisees say she was caught in the very act. It takes two ... so where was the guy? The Law demanded that BOTH be put to death.

Ergo: Pharisitical set up to pull something on Jesus.

The Lamma
03-28-2007, 12:18 PM
It wasn't a total set up, mind you. Its not like the pharisees sent an adulterer to her or anything.

skynes
03-28-2007, 12:22 PM
It wasn't a total set up, mind you. Its not like the pharisees sent an adulterer to her or anything.

Oh? Then why did they not drag the man to Jesus also? The law demanded that both man AND woman were to be stoned.

They dragged out just the woman. Why?

It was clear she sinned, because Jesus forgave her for it and told her to sin no more. But where was the man?

We already know the Pharisees weren't beyond paying people to sin, leaving their hands 'clean' (Judas and the 30 silver). Is it possible they did it here also?

The Lamma
03-28-2007, 12:28 PM
Just let me find that passage...And just so you know, I known the gospels pretty well since I've been in the Passion Play (a play of Jesus' life, and its big) for like 4 years. :P

The Lamma
03-28-2007, 12:46 PM
John 8

1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.


10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11 "No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."


It doesn't really say much here. So we won't know for sure. And biblegateway says "((The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.))"

skynes
03-28-2007, 01:34 PM
and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.


If she was caught in the act of adultery then they also caught the guy by default.

The Lamma
03-28-2007, 01:43 PM
But the question is, did they decide not to bring him out, or was it planned? Or something else?

DarkestRose
03-28-2007, 01:48 PM
Well, if they had been honestly trying to enforce the law both the woman and the man would have been taken out. There is no way to skirt around this since they said that they had caught the woman in the act. The chances of them just walking in and catching her seem slim. So chances are good that they were setting Jesus up.

skynes
03-28-2007, 01:48 PM
But the question is, did they decide not to bring him out, or was it planned? Or something else?

As I said, these are Pharisees, not below paying someone 30 pieces of silver to have a man murdered. They themselves said that it was the price of blood (Matt 27:6), would they be below sending an adulteress to her death to catch Jesus out?

The Lamma
03-28-2007, 02:16 PM
They would have killed any adulterer caught in they act. But, how would they set it up without having a second aldulterer??

skynes
03-28-2007, 02:40 PM
They would have killed any adulterer caught in they act. But, how would they set it up without having a second aldulterer??

Assumption:

They did have a second. Set up for the purpose of testing Christ. The guy gets let off (him being in on it after all), the woman gets dragged to Jesus.

I doubt it would have been a Pharisee involved. But maybe a guy told if he paid the temple some money he'd be let off.

The Lamma
03-28-2007, 07:04 PM
Maybe. But you were so against assumptions lately...what happened? Lol

skynes
03-29-2007, 03:17 AM
Maybe. But you were so against assumptions lately...what happened? Lol

I'm not against assumptions or theories, encourage those. I'm against opinions/assumptions/theories which contradict scripture.

But I HAVE scripture to support this idea. I'm not gonna go preaching it to the masses or anything, cause it's only a curious idea, not a doctrine.

Xon_*
03-29-2007, 03:36 AM
The pharisees also wanted to show that they were more merciful than Jesus, since they did not hold to Moses' law in this respect at all even at this stage in history. They did not stone people caught in adultery at this stage. (They needed roman consent to do a death penalty, that's why they took Jesus to pilate). So for Jesus to condemn the woman would have meant that the pharisees showed more mercy than Jesus.

skynes
03-29-2007, 04:16 AM
The pharisees also wanted to show that they were more merciful than Jesus, since they did not hold to Moses' law in this respect at all even at this stage in history. They did not stone people caught in adultery at this stage. (They needed roman consent to do a death penalty, that's why they took Jesus to pilate). So for Jesus to condemn the woman would have meant that the pharisees showed more mercy than Jesus.

They only obeyed that Roman law when Romans were around. When there were no Romans they killed as they wanted (i.e. Stephen)

I'll need to read up on it, but it could have been a test to make Jesus forgive her sins.

I know if Jesus said 'don't kill her' they'd have grounds for Him ignoring Jewish Law.

The Lamma
03-29-2007, 03:59 PM
Thats exactly why he didn't say it that way. And I do agree it was a test, yes, but I'm uncertain whether or not it was set up. Maybe they tried to stone the guy seperately?

DarkestRose
03-29-2007, 04:07 PM
It still seems a little unlikely that it wasn't a set up. I believe that they needed to have a certian number of witnesses as well. And the chances of them catching them in the act with the right number of people, just doesn't seem like something that would happen too easily. And to have no mention of the guy seems fishy.

I will say though, we're getting a bit off topic.

The Lamma
03-29-2007, 04:11 PM
I agree with that last line, lol.

Quadripedman
03-29-2007, 05:51 PM
w00t for off-topic-isity. and for new words!

The Lamma
03-29-2007, 05:56 PM
w00t for w00tness.

skynes
03-30-2007, 02:55 AM
Thats exactly why he didn't say it that way. And I do agree it was a test, yes, but I'm uncertain whether or not it was set up. Maybe they tried to stone the guy seperately?

Stoning required 2 or 3 witnesses to the sin.

As Darkest Rose said, for them to casually walk into the bedroom, with 2 or 3 people, juuust the right number at the right time, is fishy.

No mention is made of the guy, instead they drag the woman to Jesus and ask Him what should be done.

If He was a real teacher and prophet of God, He will not contradict the word of God. Thus being the test. But they knew even here that Jesus was a merciful man. Would He let her off?

Instead He said the Genius line "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone"

----

Mods: Possible split off into another topic?

The Lamma
03-30-2007, 09:55 AM
Stoning required 2 or 3 witnesses to the sin.


Just note that people were obviously caught in the past. If that seems weird to you that they would 'happen' to find them, why was stoning adulterers implimented?

skynes
03-30-2007, 11:01 AM
Just note that people were obviously caught in the past. If that seems weird to you that they would 'happen' to find them, why was stoning adulterers implimented?

Unmarried girl gets pregnant. ;)

NightCrawler
03-30-2007, 02:21 PM
Unmarried girl gets pregnant. ;)
Involuntary abortion?

The Lamma
03-30-2007, 02:24 PM
I guess, lol. But I think there was people caught before that stage...


^^^Posted a lil before me

unshakeable15
04-01-2007, 03:03 PM
Scott, i had this same though back in October. (i even posted about it in my LJ (http://unshakeable.livejournal.com/62300.html), so i have documentary proof.) Not that i am an intellictual elite or anything, so my joining in your voice is anything to substantiate what you say, but i do think it is a viable interpretation/viewpoint of how things went down in Chinatown.

skynes
04-02-2007, 02:35 AM
Involuntary abortion?

*shrug* It's what the scripture says. That both the man and women were to be put to death.

As a quick theory, maybe they preferred the idea of sending that baby right to God over having him born into worse sin than everyone else. Act of mercy?


Mike I read that and I like it. I hadn't noticed but the addition of the breaking Roman law (if Jesus says yes) is a big boost to the idea.

unshakeable15
04-03-2007, 01:52 PM
Score! :D

i'm not sure on the involuntary abortion thing. It seems rather harsh of God to put the sins of the fathers onto the child. But how do we reconcile that God has done that in the past with Jesus' comment concerning this when the Pharisees asked?

skynes
04-04-2007, 03:06 AM
It seems rather harsh of God to put the sins of the fathers onto the child.

Exodus 20:5 "you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, "

Deuteronomy 5:9 "you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, "

You were saying? Lol.

Look at this from an eternal perspective:

1. Mother lives, child is born. Child was born through sin, child grows up to be like the father, child does the same sins as the father.

2. Mother and child dies. (assuming age of accountability) child is in heaven with God.


I know it sounds twisted to our modern 'morality', but this may actually be a merciful act on God's part. That child never has to live in sin, grow up in his fathers sin and walk the same path as his father.

Generational curses are a pain.

unshakeable15
04-05-2007, 06:55 PM
How does this fit in with Jesus's answer in John 9?

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.

skynes
04-06-2007, 03:38 AM
Has no relevance whatsoever. It doesn't mean that God will punish children for their parents actions, but that the children are highly likely to follow the same paths as their parents.

My Pastor told me once that the last man in America to be hung for horse stealing never knew his father or grandfather. they both died before he was born... executed... for horse stealing.


The Disciples asked if because of sin, this guy was born blind. If that is possible... then we should all be deaf, dumb and mute.