Hidden Motive?
- Thread starter Rhackley
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
"in the ACT of adultery" was what she was accused of. But, where was the man she was supposedly with, he surely was a part of the ACT of adultery? Typically, adultery requires more than one person to be caught "in the act".
I therefore find it strange that NO MAN was brought forth with her!!
-
1
- Show all
What does "hidden motive" have to do with this question? And there was nothing *strange* about the woman. What was strange is the way that the scribes and Pharisees were trying to set up Jesus of Nazareth (and failed miserably).
Another thing that is strange is that although this passage has been recognized from the very beginning as integral to the Gospel of John, rationalistic unbelieving scholars and critics have cast doubts on John 8:3-11 (knows as Pericope de Adulterae) and tried to remove it from modern bible versions. Dean Burgon addressed this issue in depth and proved from the manuscript and lectionary evidence that this was a genuine portion of the inspired word of God.
"Moreover, although the Greek Fathers were silent about the "pericope de adultera" the Church was not silent. John 8:3-11 was chosen as the lesson to be read publicly each year on St. Pelagia's day, October 8th.[15] John Burgon first pointed out the significance of this historical circumstance: "The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach - and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing - the Eastern Church has selected nine of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8." [16] As Burgon remarked, this is not opinion - but a fact."
https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html
Another thing that is strange is that although this passage has been recognized from the very beginning as integral to the Gospel of John, rationalistic unbelieving scholars and critics have cast doubts on John 8:3-11 (knows as Pericope de Adulterae) and tried to remove it from modern bible versions. Dean Burgon addressed this issue in depth and proved from the manuscript and lectionary evidence that this was a genuine portion of the inspired word of God.
"Moreover, although the Greek Fathers were silent about the "pericope de adultera" the Church was not silent. John 8:3-11 was chosen as the lesson to be read publicly each year on St. Pelagia's day, October 8th.[15] John Burgon first pointed out the significance of this historical circumstance: "The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach - and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing - the Eastern Church has selected nine of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8." [16] As Burgon remarked, this is not opinion - but a fact."
https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html
-
1
- Show all
What is out of the ordinary is that the man who participated is never mentioned………...sexist?
Now what is wonderful is the lesson of how to approach the law with mercy, justice and faith.
Jesus argued her "aquittal" which would be against the law had it not been for those principles that He declared should always be apñplied when using the law........here, mercy is paramount, praise God.
Now what is wonderful is the lesson of how to approach the law with mercy, justice and faith.
Jesus argued her "aquittal" which would be against the law had it not been for those principles that He declared should always be apñplied when using the law........here, mercy is paramount, praise God.
-
1
- Show all
P
Here's the real treachery in this event. About the time Jesus began his ministry the law went into effect that a Jew could not sentence a person to death. Not even a stoneing by Jewish law.
Therefore bringing her to Jesus was to be a double whammy. If Jesus said fulfill the law he would of broke Roman law which would of ended in punishment of death. Had he just said forgive her then the noted Rabbi went against the law and he would of been disowned.
By saying you without sin cast the first stone was wisdom indeed. When they left feeling convicted and defeated in their attempt to trap him the words "where are your accusors" was using the law again for there had to be 2 or more witness.
Therefore bringing her to Jesus was to be a double whammy. If Jesus said fulfill the law he would of broke Roman law which would of ended in punishment of death. Had he just said forgive her then the noted Rabbi went against the law and he would of been disowned.
By saying you without sin cast the first stone was wisdom indeed. When they left feeling convicted and defeated in their attempt to trap him the words "where are your accusors" was using the law again for there had to be 2 or more witness.
Your absolutely right, you can't catch one party in the act of adultery unless there is another party. That makes sense. However, Moses killed a man who he saw hit a Hebrew.
And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. Ex 2:11-12
Yet when Moses saw another man hitting a Hebrew, he did nothing to him. Why not?
So maybe the reason they did not bring the man caught in the act of adultery to be stoned to death was for the same reason Moses did not kill the second man who he saw hitting a Hebrew man.
But then again, if one can read the writing in the sand when Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground, then it isn't strange why the didn't stone the woman to death.
And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. Ex 2:11-12
Yet when Moses saw another man hitting a Hebrew, he did nothing to him. Why not?
So maybe the reason they did not bring the man caught in the act of adultery to be stoned to death was for the same reason Moses did not kill the second man who he saw hitting a Hebrew man.
But then again, if one can read the writing in the sand when Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground, then it isn't strange why the didn't stone the woman to death.
What part of 'they' inferred that there wasn't two witnesses?
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act John 8:4
Moreover that they must be two accusers before a person could be charged with a sin.
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; 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. Deut 19:17-19
If two witnesses were required to charge a person with sin then nobody could make the judgment that a person had sinned without two witnesses that the person had sinned. Yet if a woman is raped then the rapist could not be be convicted of rape unless two witnesses testify that the woman was raped? Absolutely ridiculous, yet two witnesses were only required to put a person to death for any sin.
"...but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Num 35:30
But of course they could also call up the stone to testify against a person, I know one member that thinks a stone can talk, but it can't be cross-examined since it written, "And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God." Josh 24:27
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:
John 8:8-9
So howbeit that Jesus found the woman guilty of adultery as evident by the fact he told the woman to go and sin no more?
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act John 8:4
Moreover that they must be two accusers before a person could be charged with a sin.
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; 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. Deut 19:17-19
If two witnesses were required to charge a person with sin then nobody could make the judgment that a person had sinned without two witnesses that the person had sinned. Yet if a woman is raped then the rapist could not be be convicted of rape unless two witnesses testify that the woman was raped? Absolutely ridiculous, yet two witnesses were only required to put a person to death for any sin.
"...but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Num 35:30
But of course they could also call up the stone to testify against a person, I know one member that thinks a stone can talk, but it can't be cross-examined since it written, "And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God." Josh 24:27
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:
John 8:8-9
So howbeit that Jesus found the woman guilty of adultery as evident by the fact he told the woman to go and sin no more?
-
1
- Show all