What Would Have Happened To This Woman If Jesus Hadn't Have Stepped In?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 48
Topic's author
#1
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2


A Woman Caught in AdulteryJohn 8: 1-11


 Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, 2 but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. 3 As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.
4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her [to death]. What do you say?”
6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.
9 When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”
11 “No, Lord,” she said.
And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

The Pharisee were correct of course :Leviticus 20:10
10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

What Would Have Happened To This Woman If Jesus Hadn't Have Stepped In?

Did Jesus save this woman's life? 

#2
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
she would have been stoned to death
Topic's author
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
she would have been stoned to death

Under the laws of the Old Testament? The Levitical Mosaic law?

So why wasn't she stoned to death?

Are you telling me that these Pharisee Priests ,who had been Zealous for the Law of Moses for thousands of years all of a sudden simply had a prang of conscience?  This woman ( and the man) had still broken the holy  Levitical Law, had she not?  It is said this was a trap, but this only explains why they pretended they were interested in his opinion.  This doesn't explain  why had they even listened to Jesus on this matter  never mind  acted on what he said? 

 




#4
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Stephen
They listened to him because he did not travel alone. He had a rather large posse and his posse was armed. When he was arrested the Roman's waited until his posse was asleep, and one was still attacked by one of his people armed with a sword. He had a very scary presence as do most cult leaders. 
Topic's author
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Singularity
They listened to him because he did not travel alone. He had a rather large posse and his posse was armed.

No mention of a posse being present or anyone threatening anyone either. All went swimmingly unless you count tails between legs as violence?   Quite the opposite. It seems the Pharisee were confident enough to challenge him "to trap him" in the open , posse or not.  There is no mention of what may, did or could have happened had they manage to trap him.

So unless you want to count tails between legs, there isn't a single hint of anything that would have caused any great rebellion or dissent or uprising

 


When he was arrested the Roman's...........[  yawn yawn yawn yawn bore bore yawn]

 I don't care. That is another matter entirely.  THIS thread  is about the the rescue of a woman caught breaking strict Mosaic ,  thousands of years old law,  where the punishment was death.  And which the Pharisee were sticklers for.  I want to know why they didn't stone this woman anyway, regardless of what Jesus did or didn't say or wrote in the dust.

 And seeing that you like to answer for others; would they have killed her had Jesus not intervened. Yes or now.
#6
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Stephen
It is clear. He walked with a posse of men. This is well documented. They would have gotten fucked up. It doesn't mean he couldn't be challenged. He was challenged repeatedly, but they didn't cross the line because they would have gotten fucked up. Just like sometimes people back talk the police even though they know they are outmanned, but they still typically won't cross certain lines because they would get fucked up. 

Jesus started turning over the tables of vendors at the temple and despite him destroying people's livelihoods, nobody raised a hand to him because he traveled with an army. He would have fucked anybody up who stepped in his way. You know of his 12 disciples who are with him and who are recorded as being armed with swords, as we can tell when the Roman's grabbed him. This is already a posse of 13 including Jesus, a small gang, but he had others who followed him around, he also was well received where he went. Crowds were on his side. So him having the support of large crowds every where he went meant that nobody was going to dare step out of line with him. When Jesus drew a line in the sand, saying anyone who has not sinned may cast a stone against the slut, he was basically threatening to stone them with his disciples and the crowd, because somebody that knew that person who stepped over the line would have likely been aware of atleast one sin they committed.  

Yes the story doesn't have a lot of detail. We can't be sure what color clothes people are wearing, or even if they are wearing clothes. These details are omitted because everyone reading at the time knew everyone were clothes, just like everyone knew Jesus traveled with a posse who would fuck them up if they did anything other than rebel against him like mouthy teens to the police.
#7
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
This is a guy who was a threat to the Roman's. They were afraid to move on him. They attacked his camp while people were sleeping and he was only caught because he allowed it. Peter chopped off the ear of a roman and would have chopped off his head if Jesus had not intervened. He could stop lynch mobs because he held command over a lynch mob
#8
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Why do you keep railing on a God you dont understand? You cant accuse or fault what you dont know, you simply fault what you understand. If you want to truely put any accusation to God or fault, you must know him.
Here is a question. What does God like?
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Stephen
What the Pharisees totally misunderstood in Christ's commentary, when they "reminded him" [he needed no reminder] that the Law of Moses required her life by stoning, is that Jesus Christ was their long-awaited Messiah, whom they did not recognize at all, and that he was come to fulfill the Law of Moses; that is, to replace it with a higher law; in this instance, the law of forgiveness. Further, the Pharisees were a radical version of Judaism which had become corrupt in the Temple ceremony 600 years previous, in the times of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Malachi, so corrupting themselves that Babylon took them captive. Now, 600 years later, the Pharisees thought they were keeping the Law, but had no sense of what the Law of Moses was for, and how it would be fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah. These were evil men, and Jesus knew them as such.

Jesus did not "step in," as you put it. They stepped up to him, and, as you said, laid a perjury trap for him which Jesus saw through and confounded them by his "cast the first stone" business for whomever was sinless. The Pharisees knew in their hearts they were evil and corrupt, not at all sinless. Thus, they disbursed, shamed by their own words. That's what stopped them, not Jesus stepping in. In the process, he taught anyone listening that, if not the new sheriff in town, he was the fulfillment of the Law, and the people saw it and bear record. So, yes, in reality, Jesus did spare her life, but at a cost to her: she was to change her ways to be totally forgiven. This is appropriate because repentance is not just saying you're sorry, only to commit the same sin again, thus turning the confession seat into a turnstile. It doesn't work that way. Repentance requires a broken heart and contrite spirit; remorse for sin, AND a commitment to change one's heart.
#10
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@fauxlaw
Jesus did not replace the laws of moses. If that were the case he would not be the messiah. You are spreading  false information.

Also the pharisees were not evil. That is an ignorant thing to say.  The following verse illustrates why fauxlaw is wrong

Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!” — MATTHEW 5:17-20
#11
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Singularity
As I said, Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses. He became the ultimate blood sacrifice after all that could be done by the Israelites keeping the Law of Moses, which law, relative to blood sacrifice, had been kept from the time of Adam, who taught his sone, Cain and Abel, the purpose of blood sacrifice. You will recall that Genesis 4 tells of us Abel's sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock were acceptable to the Lord, but that Cain's offering emblems of his crop as unsatisfactory to Him. For this unacceptable sacrifice, Cain was cursed. Genesis 8 teaches us that after the flood, Noah offered burnt offerings from his flock. Abraham, as well, offered blood sacrifice of his flock, and did so until, when his beloved Isaac was still a boy, God commanded that Abraham offer his son in sacrifice [Genesis 22], and God stay4ed Abraham's hand just as he was about to follow through on God's command; God now knowing that Abraham would obey even in that. The would-be sacrifice of Isaac was in similitude of God, who did not stay His own hand in the sacrifice of His only begotten son, Jesus. Meanwhile, we read in Exodus 20 of the necessity of blood sacrifice by the Israelites. It is further explored in Leviticus 5 that the offering of unblemished animals of several kinds are offered, but that the offering be made for the seeking of forgiveness of sin, that their trespasses my be resolved by blood sacrifice. This trespass offering was fulfilled by hte ultimate blood sacrifice f Jesus, himself, who bled for the souls of all who will repent of their sins. This is further explored in Hebrews 11, and 13.  Just as you own quotation of Matthew relates: 

"But anyone who obey's God's laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you - unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers or religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdsom of Heaven."

Also the pharisees were not evil.
You maybe want to rethink that based on your own quoted verse? Who does not enter tyhe Kinghdom of Heaven? Evil people, that's who.

Thus is the substantiation that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses, and the law of the Gospel replaced the need of blood sacrifice by the offering of a penitent heart and contrite spirit, trading shame for sin with forgiveness from God.
#12
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@fauxlaw
The sentence right after you say "to fulfill the law, you add "that is to replace it". He hasn't replaced the law. The 10 commandments are still valid, you still should not be eating pork, as delicious as that is etc. Now ceremonial law is quite different,  so I won't be getting into that, but if you install Temple OS in your co.puter you can still make sacrifices to God and be fine. 

The statement by Jesus was not meant to call the pharisees evil either. It was a  statement that supports the fact that we can not get to heaven through acts alone. The pharisees were masters at keeping to the law, and Jesus said these people who are so well versed in the law are not worthy of heaven. A statement that is true for all of us. We all fall short of the glory of God, but he allows us I to heavan because of his mercy. It wasn't meant to disparage the pharisees. It was meant to teach his disciples a core truth about christianity

#13
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@fauxlaw
You maybe want to rethink that based on your own quoted verse? Who does not enter tyhe Kinghdom of Heaven? Evil people, that's who.
This is just false. A lot of good people will end up in hell, while evil people can gain passage to heavan. You are not saved through your works. Jeffrey dahmer supposedly found God in prison. It is possible he is sitting I  heavan right now, while somebody as good as Ghandi is residing in hell from his disbelief. 

Topic's author
#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Singularity
It is clear. He walked with a posse of men. This is well documented.

Nope.  As I have already said. There is no evidence that Jesus  was accompanied by a  sword wielding "posse" while  teaching at the holy Temple. Go read what is ACTUALLY  written and not what you want to be written. >>> #1
I agree, many if not all of his disciples carried weapons, this is because they were ALL zealots.. In fact he told them to go out and buy them didn't he. Luke 22:36-38. I would also agree that he was building a fkn great army too.  But none of this goes anywhere to actually prove your point. AT ALL.  If you know anything concerning these unreliable, ambiguous half stories in the  scriptures, you will know that Jesus (failed) mission was timed. He was forever saying "now is not the time" or "my time" and "my time has not yet come". I think you should take on your own advice where you say " I would work on your reading comprehension skills".



They would have gotten fucked up. It doesn't mean he couldn't be challenged.
More wild silly claims without supporting evidence. 



He was challenged repeatedly, but they didn't cross the line because they would have gotten fucked up.

Jesus was challenged a few times before his arrest I agree.  But there is absolutely no indication that anyone would have "got fucked up" before his arrest.  If there was , then simply let us see your evidence.


Just like sometimes people back talk the police even though they know they are outmanned, but they still typically won't cross certain lines because they would get fucked up. 
hahhahahahhahha. grow up !


Jesus started turning over the tables of vendors at the temple and despite him destroying people's livelihoods, nobody raised a hand to him because he traveled with an army.

Yes this was  Jesus himself involved in a direct challenge to unarmed traders and temple priests, who - according to Jesus - had turned the house of his father into a den of thieves. Matthew 21:1-13 But you are talking about a totally different occasion. I personally believe on this occasion that it was more than a little hissy fit thrown by Jesus. And so does historian Josephus. get reading and " work on your reading comprehension skills"


Yes the story doesn't have a lot of detail.

 That's right. It doesn't, does it!?   But this doesn't give you literary licence to invent shite  to support your unfounded claims.



 We can't be sure what color clothes people are wearing,
 Oh that is a shame isn't it. It may have gone some way to proving everything you have to say on this matter of an adulterous woman. But  that is not all you can be sure about t is it?  AND I haven't asked what colour cloths the adulterous was wearing. I am not asking what colour cloths Jesus was wearing and I don't care what colour clothes the Pharisee were wearing.  



Jesus traveled with a posse who would fuck them up
So you keep saying. 



#15
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@Stephen
Are you brain dead? Luke 22:49-51 shows that his disciples 12 and their tag alongs carried swords. Let's just imagine though they aren't armed. He is still walking around with atleast 12 rough mother fuckers but even if they were soft it is scary to face 12 dudes, and he drew a crowd. So probably half the people watching the stoning in addition to his 12 disciples and their hang arounds. . If you walked outside and saw a gang of 12 men telling you not to do something, unless you have a gun on you, you are probably going to bow to their wishes at the moment. This is without even acknowledging the weapons, popular support in random passer bys and near by crowds and even counting the hang arounds. 
Topic's author
#16
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Are you brain dead? Luke 22:49-51 shows that his disciples 12 and their tag alongs carried swords.

That is right. I said at Luke 22:36-38. Jesus actually tells them to go buy swords. ;

Go up and read it again. This is what I wrote>>>  "I agree, many if not all of his disciples carried weapons, this is because they were ALL zealots.. In fact he told them to go out and buy them didn't he. Luke 22:36-38   "   .. You really need to polish up on "your reading comprehension skills".

But then Jesus also says  Matthew 26:52   “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword".  One just has to laugh at times, don't they?  I know I do.

He is still walking around with atleast 12 rough mother fuckers but even if they were soft it is scary to face 12 dudes.
And I haven't disagreed with that.  " You really need to polish up on "your reading comprehension skills".


So probably half the people watching the stoning in addition to his 12 disciples and their hang arounds. 
There was no stoning.  . See >>> #1 " You really need to polish up on "your reading comprehension skills".


If you walked outside and saw a gang of 12 men telling you not to do something, unless you have a gun on you, you are probably going to bow to their wishes at the moment. 
 You are correct. But tell me, did Jesus'  "gang of 12 men"  tell the crowd "not to do anything" or not to interfere. Is there a biblical verse perhaps  that you can highlight for us, that shows these gang of twelve threatening or just telling and advising anyone " not to do something,"?

This is without even acknowledging the weapons, popular support in random passer bys and near by crowds and even counting the hang arounds.

 My lord, you do not know or understand these scriptures at all do you? Listen,  No one  among the general populace outside of authorities in Jerusalem  even knew who Jesus was.  Jesus was a Galilean, his following was from Galilee, his disciples were Galilean. Galilee was the heartland of the zealots.  Learn your scripture BOY!!!

 And you still haven't said if or not that this woman would have been stoned if it wasn't for Jesus? YES or NO?


Topic's author
#17
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@ FAUXLAW

As I said, Jesus came to fulfill the Law of Moses [ guff, guff, guff guff guff, guff guff, guff, guff, guff, guff, guff guff, guff, guff, guff, guff, guff}

 Another coward who leaves comments without a right to reply.  Don't leave comments for me, if you cannot be gracious enough to afford me the right to reply. What are you afraid of?
Would this  woman  have been stoned if it wasn't for Jesus? YES or NO?


#18
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Singularity
The 10 commandments are still valid, you still should not be eating pork, as delicious as that is etc. 
As I said, the Law of Moses was fulfilled and replaced by a higher law. Yes, the 10 commandments are still valid, but, if anything, augmented: 
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5: 

That's a higher law, isn't it? 

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5

That's a higher law, isn't it?

43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bnless them that curse you, do good to them that hatye you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Matthew 5.

That's a higher law, isn't it?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as you Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matthew 5

That's a very high law, isn't it?

Would you like to rethink that, as I said?

The statement by Jesus was not meant to call the pharisees evil either
7 ¶ But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Matthew 3.

Want to rethink how righteous the Pharisees were?
#19
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Stephen
I'm afraid of nothing, I reject your vile attitude toward me, make a civil argument, and I will not allow it directed to me. Change your attitude, I'll lift my block.
#20
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Singularity
You are not saved through your works. 

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called theFriend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.  - James 2:

It seems that not only are works necessary for salvation, but better yet, exaltation [did you know there is a difference?], but  we are saved by faith, by the grace of God, and by works. Not by any one, but all three.

Topic's author
#21
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
@ FAUXLAW


I'm afraid of nothing,
Of course you are.  And you still have avoided the question but have commented TWICE!!!!!!!
And yet here you are again, leaving comments and then attempting to close down the possibility of a direct response.  You just can't keep away. I don't give a shite about your block.
  You simply do not like anyone who poses awkward embarrassing questions and always has a logical back hand to your piss poor answers and replies. I will continue to highlight what I believe to be biblical anomalies, contradictions and out right  lies that are riddled throughout the scriptures . I am happy that you are not happy. 


 I'll lift my block.
You are delusional . I don't care about your block, I welcome it. It simply shows you for what you are, so don't flatter yourself. You haven't an argument or a defense to what I  have to say and propose concerning these ambiguous, anomalous biblical half stories.  I don't drag you kicking and screaming to my threads, you have come here all on your own free will ....... and then run away, hahahhahahhahhah.  

And  you still have avoided the question but have commented TWICE!!!!!!!
#22
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
-->
@fauxlaw
As I said, the Law of Moses was fulfilled and replaced by a higher law.
Here is the problem with you saying he replace ed the laws.

Here is what Jesus says.

Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!” — MATTHEW 5:17-20


Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5: 

That's a higher law, isn't it? 
No it is not a higher law. It is his interpretation of the best way to apply the law.  Which is to look at the spirit the law was written in and not merely the words. The rest of the evidence of bigher laws that supposedly replaced mosaic laws are in fact also him merely sayi g that the spirit of the law is what matters. 


It seems that not only are works necessary for salvation, but better yet, exaltation [did you know there is a difference?], but  we are saved by faith, by the grace of God, and by works. Not by any one, but all three.

That's dumb, because as you already pointed out. JESUS SAID YOU MUST BE MORE righteous than the pharisees if God was judging by works, and since pharisees applied the word of the law perfectly than being more righteous is impossible. 
#23
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8


 And you still haven't said if or not that this woman would have been stoned if it wasn't for Jesus? YES or NO?
Obviously she would have been stoned to death had Jesus not intervened


You are correct. But tell me, dif Jesus'  "gang of 12 men"  tell the crowd "not to do anything" or not to interfere. Is there a biblical verse perhaps  that you can highlight for us, that shows these gang of twelve threatening or just telling and advising anyone " not to do something,"?
They really wouldn't need to. JESUS drew a line in the sand and asked somebody to cross it. He had a gang of 12 men with him. 

It is like 6 large black men standing around you in a circle in prison inviting you to pick up the soap. They don't have to explicitly say what will happen if you do it, but you know not to. When any gang of people, are in front of you they don't have to actually threaten you verbally for you to know it is a threat. Would you have had the balls to stand up to 13 men to say yes you will stone some woman to death and dare them to do something about it? I doubt you would have the balls or they would even need to vocalize the threat. 

With that said, we are obviously not told every detail of what happened. Just the important details. For me I make no assumptions other than what common sense would tell me, which is 13 vs 1 scenarios are very scary. 
With you, you just are assuming that nothing took place which wasn't directly written about, which is a retarded stance to take and not something anybody with a 3 digit IQ would assume



#24
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Singularity
What do you know of the second temple period? Not much, apparently, since the Pharisees are direct descendants of that corrupt period. The "law" they practiced was so far removed from the Law of Moses, as given, there was reason why Jesus called them a generation of vipers. Who do you think populated the crowd in Pilate's courtyard, screaming for the crucifixion of Jesus? The Mickey Mouse Club?
#25
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7


FAUXLAW SPEAKS!

FAUXLAW'S STATEMENT SAYING THAT THE 10 COMMANDMENTS ARE STILL VALID, POST #18:  " ...... Yes, the 10 commandments are still valid, .......... "

Oh, oh, again the Bible ignorant FAUXLAW steps in the proverbial poo.  His statement now means that there are 603 Commandments left out of the 613 that are shown within the Old Testament to follow as well,  therefore,  FAUXLAW cannot have his cake and eat it too in giving validity as well to the remaining 603 commandments set forth by our Hebrew Jesus the Christ as Yahweh God incarnate!

Whoops, this is what happens to the truly Bible ignorant pseudo-christians like FAUXLAW.  In using Bible Logic 101, now FAUXLAW proposes in a godly way that the 603 Commandments that are now left are to be followed as well!  A few notable commands of the total  613 are as follows:

"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." (Deuteronomy 22:11)

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening." (Leviticus 15:19)

"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17)

“And the man that committeth adultery with another mans wife even he that committeth adultery with his neighbors wife the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death”  (Leviticus 20:10)

" And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you." (Leviticus 20:14 )


We can only assume that FAUXLAW, and other pseudo-christians as well, will start following the above commandments along with the other remaining 598 commands equal and valid to the 10 commandments that FAUXLAW says are still valid!  Yes,  FAUXLAW has now opened another can of worms equal to his running away from me in answering his Satanic and comical DAY-AGE Theory relative to the two contradicting Creation narratives! LOL

.






Topic's author
#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Singularity
 And you still haven't said if or not that this woman would have been stoned if it wasn't for Jesus? YES or NO?
Obviously she would have been stoned to death had Jesus not intervened
 And that is all I needed to know.  I didn't need  your made up bits and pieces concerning men with swords and who coulda', shoulda' ,woulda'  "been fucked up".



You are correct. But tell me, dif Jesus'  "gang of 12 men"  tell the crowd "not to do anything" or not to interfere. Is there a biblical verse perhaps  that you can highlight for us, that shows these gang of twelve threatening or just telling and advising anyone " not to do something,"?
They really wouldn't need to. JESUS drew a line in the sand and asked somebody to cross it. He had a gang of 12 men with him. 

 I see;  and you have a biblical  verse that confirms all of this do you? You see, the only thing mentioned is "writing" and it has never ever been disclosed what it was Jesus actually  wrote.       

John 8:  7 but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust. And which  verse states that Jesus "asked somebody to cross it"? 

Although, I believe there may be  an excellent clue that explains what was written in the dust by Jesus, in Jeremiah.

For me I make no assumptions 

Oh stop it?  Is all you have done since joining this thread is "ASSUME " everything about EVERYTHING.  Your tiny mind has tried to fill in gaps with "assumptions" and you are now   trying to present those assumptions, YOUR OWN assumptions,  as fact. 


#27
CaptainSceptic
CaptainSceptic's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 80
0
0
10
CaptainSceptic's avatar
CaptainSceptic
0
0
10
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherDThomas
@Singularity
@fauxlaw
I am fascinated by this conversation.

I have to give Props to Stephen.  You asked a very very clear question, and yet it is still not fully answered.

We have Singularity who is making gang shit up, painting a picture that he is some theological mystic with his finger on the pulse of the eras zeitgeist.
We have Fauxlaw who is trying to justify his position based on the incoherent babble of biblical references served with a side order of Pharisee's genealogy, trying to paint a picture that he is a theological scholar.

And then we have Brother who shows that Singularity and Fauxlaw are selectively ignoring huge parts of the bible. 

Have either of you  Singularity or Fauxlaw ever said "Good question, I don't know... or hmmm "that seems like a bit of a paradox".  Fuck no... you are both too caught up in your half-assed beliefs that you don't have the balls to say that you don't know it all.

To top it off you have Stephen, who like me, is asking very basic questions, the one thing we both know... IS WE DONT KNOW EVERYTHING, and yet he can't get a straight answer.

I sit and wait for clarity.
Topic's author
#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@CaptainSceptic
I sit and wait for clarity.

Unless you have the lungs of a Polynesian pearl diver, do not hold your breath.
#29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@CaptainSceptic
what aere my half-=assed beliefs [you must know wha tthey are to make the claim they're half-assed], and which huge chunk of the Bible am I ignring since I've read all of it in four different languages. Match that, or maybe you're missing the chunks. You're waiting for clarity as if it was a parade?
#30
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@CaptainSceptic



.

CaptainSceptic,

FAUXLAW ALERT, AGAIN!

Oh my, as you can readily see in the Bible ignorant FAUXLAW'S post #29 above, his English syntactical sentence structuring and spelling skills go severely wanting! This gives Christianity a bad name when one of its assumed followers are so blatantly unskilled in the English language. Jesus is more than likely shaking His head in disgust as He peers down upon FAUXLAW’s post in question (Hebrews 4:13).

Furthermore, FAUXLAW is an alleged author of books as shown in his wanting biography, therefore, I feel sorry for the proofreader that should get “double pay” in correcting his horrific lack of writing skills before his books go to print! 

As shown ad infinitum, FAUXLAW is too embarrassed to tell you what DIVISION of Christianity that he follows. I have tried to get it out of him, but to no avail. You will learn that the majority of pseudo-christians upon this forum take the same ungodly stance, which tells a lot about them.

Unfortunately for FAUXLAW’S future true enlightenment, he has me on block, and this is because I challenged him upon his comical and ungodly notion of his the AGE-DAY THEORY relative to the 2 contradicting Creation narratives. Once I challenged him upon his topic, “POOF” he ran away!  He has also ran away from my post #25 within this thread that continued to show his outright biblical ignorance. In doing so in both instances, he went directly against the inspired word of Jesus when He stated that ALL Christians are to defend the faith!

"He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9) 


Subjectively speaking, FAUXLAW is nothing but flotsam in this forum by taking up valuable space for others to engage in meaningful discussion.


.