Question

[charisenexcelcis]

Cup--to teach us, as the law was intended, our need for grace. Also, it reveals the hypocrisy of men. I pray that if I had lived in that time that I would not have thrown the first stone.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Cup--to teach us, as the law was intended, our need for grace.

No, thats not the lesson, because Jesus had to obey the law to be sinless, His sinless blood was yet to be shed, He followed the law, and the law of Moses was fulfilled as the women was not guilty of the charge laid against her, if the two witnesses were present and the man that was caught with her, then by law stoning was required, as this was not the case, then the case was declared by Jesus, illegitmate, which is correct, the women was innocent of the charge brought against her by the Pharisees, but she was guilty under the law of Jealousy, thus the curse written in the dust, so Jesus said 'sin no more' in this regard, and He executed the law perfectly, being so the Lord.

Also, it reveals the hypocrisy of men. I pray that if I had lived in that time that I would not have thrown the first stone.

No stone could be thrown according to the law, thus no stone was thrown, the Pharisees backed down because they were caught out trying to deceive Jesus, thus they sinned and could not cast the first stone, Jesus dealt with them accordingly and the woman's punishment was written in the ground, thus she saw and was convicted as an Israelite, and told, 'sin no more'.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Cup--do you believe that Jesus was not qualified to cast the first stone? I don't care to hear about how the law did not apply. Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Was Jesus qualified?

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Cup--do you believe that Jesus was not qualified to cast the first stone? I don't care to hear about how the law did not apply. Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Was Jesus qualified?

The woman is not guilty of the charge made against her by the Pharisees, the Pharisees knew this, they were guilty of lying, they knew it, they could not stone her under the law, there would have had to be a man present who was also guilty, they both needed to be caught, and there needed to be two witnesses, yet 'no man accuses me', so the case is illegitimate. To show that the Lord knew their thoughts and knew that this was another man's "wife", He complied with the law prescribed in Numbers 5:11-31.

"Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground, And they that heard it being convicted by their own conscience" 8 John 8:8-9

Jesus wrote the curse on the ground; "The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people" and "the priest shall write them in the book" Num. 5:23.

Jesus dismisses the Pharisees case and conducted a new case with Him as LORD pronouncing a curse and as High Preist He writes on the ground.

The Pharisees were still there but the others who had gone along with the Pharisees against the woman had left, because it says 'they went out one, by one', but the Pharisees were still there, and they accused Jesus this time, because they did not have two witnesses, you see the witnesses, the people would have had to stone the woman, NOT the Pharisees, they could not stone the woman, they themselves could not carry out the execution by their own hand, just like they could not execute Jesus, they got the Romans and other Judeans to carry out the execution, but the people had left, they were convicted by their own conscience, no man was left to condemn the woman to death, Jesus di not condemn her because she was not guilty of the crime put against her by the Phasiees, but she was guilty under the law of jealousy, and the LORD knew this and He wrote the curse on the ground, the woman had sinned but the Phaisees were using her, if they could get the people to stone this woman, and she was innocent, then the Pharisees would have successfully decieved Jesus. But they did not decieve Him and He judged correctly, so the Pharisees accuse Him of not having two witnesses, so it's like saying, 'you claimed we did not have the witnesses, but where are yours, you need two, you cannot judge of yourself', but Jesus answered that He can, He says He has His Father in heaven as His witness....

 

[charisenexcelcis]

The woman is not guilty of the charge made against her by the Pharisees, the Pharisees knew this, they were guilty of lying, they knew it, they could not stone her under the law, there would have had to be a man present who was also guilty, they both needed to be caught, and there needed to be two witnesses, yet 'no man accuses me', so the case is illegitimate. To show that the Lord knew their thoughts and knew that this was another man's "wife", He complied with the law prescribed in Numbers 5:11-31.

"Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground, And they that heard it being convicted by their own conscience" 8 John 8:8-9

Jesus wrote the curse on the ground; "The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people" and "the priest shall write them in the book" Num. 5:23.

Jesus dismisses the Pharisees case and conducted a new case with Him as LORD pronouncing a curse and as High Preist He writes on the ground.

The Pharisees were still there but the others who had gone along with the Pharisees against the woman had left, because it says 'they went out one, by one', but the Pharisees were still there, and they accused Jesus this time, because they did not have two witnesses, you see the witnesses, the people would have had to stone the woman, NOT the Pharisees, they could not stone the woman, they themselves could not carry out the execution by their own hand, just like they could not execute Jesus, they got the Romans and other Judeans to carry out the execution, but the people had left, they were convicted by their own conscience, no man was left to condemn the woman to death, Jesus di not condemn her because she was not guilty of the crime put against her by the Phasiees, but she was guilty under the law of jealousy, and the LORD knew this and He wrote the curse on the ground, the woman had sinned but the Phaisees were using her, if they could get the people to stone this woman, and she was innocent, then the Pharisees would have successfully decieved Jesus. But they did not decieve Him and He judged correctly, so the Pharisees accuse Him of not having two witnesses, so it's like saying, 'you claimed we did not have the witnesses, but where are yours, you need two, you cannot judge of yourself', but Jesus answered that He can, He says He has His Father in heaven as His witness....

You have difficulty answering a simple question. In this post you leap from John to Numbers when the sense of the passage does not support it. You reinterpret "they" to mean everyone but the Pharasees, you ignore the woman's answer that her accusers were gone and the statement from Jesus ("Neither do I condemn you") which would connotate that he had the right to condemn her and to cast the first stone.
By the way, history shows that it is doubtful in this small case the Romans would have cared whether she was stoned, as you can see throughout Acts when there are several stonings without the prior approval of the Romans.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

You have difficulty answering a simple question. In this post you leap from John to Numbers when the sense of the passage does not support it.

According to E.W. Bullinger's notes in the KJV, what I wrote is correct.

You reinterpret "they" to mean everyone but the Pharasees,

That's right the Herodian Pharisees remained, the other true Israelites who had a conscience were convicted by it and left, it says that.

you ignore the woman's answer that her accusers were gone and the statement from Jesus ("Neither do I condemn you") which would connotate that he had the right to condemn her and to cast the first stone.

Of course He had the right, He is God, He made the law in the first place, but she was not guilty, just caught up in the treachery of the Pharisees in their attempt to decieve Jesus.

By the way, history shows that it is doubtful in this small case the Romans would have cared whether she was stoned, as you can see throughout Acts when there are several stonings without the prior approval of the Romans.

No Romans present in this case.