1. Donationbuckky
    Filthy sinner
    Outskirts of bliss
    Joined
    24 Sep '02
    Moves
    96652
    25 Feb '12 14:13
    Numbers 5:11'31 explains the test for adultery. A woman suspected of infiidelity was forced to drink a concoction made of sweeping debris from the Temple floor mixed with Holy Water. If she swelled up she was guilty, and nothing takes place she's innocent.
    Now is this the kind of profound wisdom we can take to the bank and know we have found the Good Book. The wacky book is more like it.
  2. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    25 Feb '12 14:535 edits
    John 8:3-12:

    And the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst, They said to Him, Teacher, this woman has been caught committing adultery, in the very act.

    Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. What then do you say? But they said this to tempt Him, so that they might have reason to accuse Him. But Jesus stopped down and write with His finger on the ground.

    But when they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, He who is without sin among you let him be the first to throw a stone at her. And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

    And when they heard that, they went out one by one, beginning with the older ones. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman stood where she was, in the midst.

    And Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they ? Has no one condemned you ? And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more. "


    It is curious that John includes this detail that Jesus stooped and wrote in the ground while the vehement mob was pressing Him to give the word to execute the woman. No one knows WHAT it was that Jesus was writing in the dust. But He seems preoccupied with it to the point that He didn't stop until they had all dispersed.

    Neither do I know what Jesus was writing in the sand. But I give an opinion. Perhaps Jesus was demonstrating that the details of the Law of Moses as given to Moses by God were effectually Jesus Christ writing. He was the God of the Old Testament incarnate and come as a man - "And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us." (John 1:14)

    They did not realize that He knew what was in the Law because as God He Himself had been its Author. The ten commandments had been said to be written "with the finger of God" (Exodus 31:18)

    He was God. He was the author of every detail of the Law of Moses.
    He had the authority. He was the ONLY one qualified to be the Judge of all mankind. And He did not condemn the woman but FORGAVE her, released her. All details of execution were superceded. All specifics of punishment in its methods were instantaneously absolved by the only One who possessed the real Authority to judge every sinner.

    "And Jesus stood up and said to her, Woman, where are they ? Has no one condemned you ? And she said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you; go and from now on sin no more."

    I believe that that word from the mouth of Jesus so impacted her that her life was changed from that point. Maybe as John was writing his Gospel this woman assisted him with these details of her experience.

    Anyway "the Good Book" certainly is the Divine Book. God Himself as a man came and nullified all the details of punishment of sinners under the Moses Law with a word. He Himself was judged on the cross to release all of us to go and sin no more.
  3. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    25 Feb '12 15:021 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    John 8:3-12:

    And the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst, They said to Him, Teacher, this woman has been caught committing adultery, in the very act.

    Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. What then do you say? But they said this to tempt Him, so that they might have reason a word. He Himself was judged on the cross to release all of us to go and sin no more.
    Here's the problem, though. Despite that being a moving passage and all, the fact is that is was not originally in the bible. It was a later addition. If you were a biblical scholar, instead of a biblical apologist, you would know this.
  4. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    25 Feb '12 15:081 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Here's the problem, though. Despite that being a moving passage and all, the fact is that is was not originally in the bible. It was a later addition. If you were a biblical scholar, instead of a biblical apologist, you would know this.
    How do you know that I DID NOT know that that is a disputed passage ?
    I knew that. And if I had mentioned it I appear too verbose -

    "Why are you posts SOOOOO Long ?"

    Anyway. I am aware that that part of John is not in all the ancient NT manuscripts.
  5. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    25 Feb '12 15:10
    Originally posted by jaywill
    How do you know that I DID NOT know that that is a disputed passage ?

    I knew that. And if I had mentioned it I appear too verbose -

    "Why are you posts SOOOOO Long !"

    Anyway. I am aware that that part of John is not in all the ancient NT manuscripts.
    Then you argument sort of falls apart, doesn't it?
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    25 Feb '12 15:301 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Then you argument sort of falls apart, doesn't it?
    No indeed.

    You're something else. The passage is disputed. So? Is it the only passage that is disputed?

    I think God is very very wise. Little techincal issues like this expose man's propensity to miss the point. We are experts at missing the point.

    The account sounds like Jesus all over. I am willing to accept that for SOME reason that record did not appear in ALL of the ancient manuscripts.

    You want to make a big deal out of the possibility that it was a fiction added latter ? To what end? What does it do for you to theorize that ?

    How is the character of Jesus diminished in the rest of the NT because those few verses are not certain to have been found in all manuscripts ? What basic tenet of the Christian faith is damaged by its exclusion ?

    Does its absence argue against Christ being God incarnate ?
    Does its absence argue for a non-sinless Savior?
    Does its absence argue that He died no redemptive death ?
    Does its absence argue for no resurrection ?

    I take the passage as authentic. No huge loss is had by my being wrong. The issue is not an exposure of the weakness of the word of God. It is an exposure of petty man's propensity to grasp at excuses and miss the overall point of God's revelation.
  7. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    25 Feb '12 16:08
    Originally posted by jaywill
    No indeed.

    You're something else. The passage is disputed. So? Is it the only passage that is disputed?

    I think God is very very wise. Little techincal issues like this expose man's propensity to miss the point. We are experts at missing the point.

    The account sounds like Jesus all over. I am willing to accept that for SOME reason that recor ...[text shortened]... f petty man's propensity to grasp at excuses and miss the overall point of God's revelation.
    Are you trying to convince me, or yourself?
  8. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    25 Feb '12 18:33
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Are you trying to convince me, or yourself?
    Its such a comfort to only ask questions.
  9. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    26 Feb '12 02:10
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Then you argument sort of falls apart, doesn't it?
    it doesn't take a disputed passage for his argument to fall apart. it's entirely speculative. he read far too much into jesus writing something on the ground and how the characters involved felt about it.
  10. Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    26 Feb '12 02:15
    Originally posted by buckky
    Numbers 5:11'31 explains the test for adultery. A woman suspected of infiidelity was forced to drink a concoction made of sweeping debris from the Temple floor mixed with Holy Water. If she swelled up she was guilty, and nothing takes place she's innocent.
    Now is this the kind of profound wisdom we can take to the bank and know we have found the Good Book. The wacky book is more like it.
    yeah. wacky superstitions. man gets suspicious and the woman suffers while he remains without guilt (num 5:31).

    very reminiscent of the practice of drowning a woman to prove witchcraft on the suspicions of a man.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Feb '12 03:28
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    yeah. wacky superstitions. man gets suspicious and the woman suffers while he remains without guilt (num 5:31).

    very reminiscent of the practice of drowning a woman to prove witchcraft on the suspicions of a man.
    Most of the witchcraft accusations were started by women who wanted to advance themselves in their society.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Feb '12 03:30
    Originally posted by jaywill
    How do you know that I DID NOT know that that is a disputed passage ?
    I knew that. And if I had mentioned it I appear too verbose -

    "Why are you posts SOOOOO Long ?"

    Anyway. I am aware that that part of John is not in all the ancient NT manuscripts.
    But here is the problem with that last statement. You admitted you knew it wasn't in the original text only after you got busted for using it. Just like how Dasa got busted putting words in a text he wrote about. You got caught out and now try to minimize the damage.
  13. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    26 Feb '12 03:49
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But here is the problem with that last statement. You admitted you knew it wasn't in the original text only after you got busted for using it. Just like how Dasa got busted putting words in a text he wrote about. You got caught out and now try to minimize the damage.
    "You admitted you knew it wasn't in the original text..."

    No he didn't. jaywill said he knew it was a disputed passage.

    Everything is disputed anyway. In the end one is left in doubt. But not me.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Feb '12 04:07
    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]"You admitted you knew it wasn't in the original text..."

    No he didn't. jaywill said he knew it was a disputed passage.

    Everything is disputed anyway. In the end one is left in doubt. But not me.[/b]
    He should have prefaced it with 'this is a disputed passage'.
  15. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    26 Feb '12 19:02
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    He should have prefaced it with 'this is a disputed passage'.
    Then we should all preface everything we say with 'this is a disputed'.

    There is no truth.(disputed)
Back to Top