How do Messianic Jews understand John 7:53-8:12

[be(t)et lamed resh]

Whatever the case was it was a trap. He simply told them to go ahead and carry out the law, it was not his place to judge her, as an eye witness. None were willing to cast the first stone. They had already gone through the process to supposedly give her the death penalty. They were setting him up to challenge his authority to forgive adultery.

Not His Place to Judge?
Being Elohim in flesh on earth as a witness does not cancel out His omnipotence.

 

[daq]

And nowhere in the text is anything about not bringing the man. Jesus said nothing about that.

I asked the question about it in Reply #4, but I did not say that the text mentions a man: that's really the whole reason for the question if you hadn't noticed.

Concubines, Betrothed handmaids, bond servants, free and not free. Redeemed, not redeemed. We see all kinds of things with servant wives as well men servants. Such as Judges 19.

There are all kinds of made up ideas to make it about THE MAN. It just is not in the text period...
Lev 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

Sticking with the text: What did Jesus do, or say?
He told them to carry out the law on her, with a word of caution to the witnesses.
Everything beyond that is mere speculation/ made up.
I am simply answering your speculation, beyond what the text says....

Now you are willing to adjust the definition of adultery so that your paradigm may survive? What happened to Lev 20:10 which was referenced to begin with in my Reply#4 response to you? Are you not willing to force your views to conform and comply with what is in the text of the John passage? According to the Torah both the adulterer and the adulteress are to receive the same punishment. Does the John passage not mention the Torah? (See again Jhn 8:5).

There is no way the Scribes and Pharisees would be testing him by leaving out the man if indeed the woman was caught in the act with the man. They are indeed testing him: but the answer to the passage dilemma is something other than what you have imagined, and because of it you have now offered up just about every Torah passage possible in an apparent attempt to find anything that will stick while still justifying your view, whether or not it actually applies to the situation in the Pericope Adulterae passage.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

And nowhere in the text is anything about not bringing the man. Jesus said nothing about that. Your point is speculation beyond the text....

Concubines, Betrothed handmaids, bond servants, free and not free. Redeemed, not redeemed. We see all kinds of things with servant wives as well men servants. Such as Judges 19.

There are all kinds of made up ideas to make it about THE MAN. It just is not in the text period...
Lev 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.
22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

Sticking with the text: What did Jesus do, or say?
He told them to carry out the law on her, with a word of caution to the witnesses.
Everything beyond that is mere speculation/ made up.
I am simply answering your speculation, beyond what the text says....

Yes judgement equally measured on the scale of justice.
Knowing full well that a witness of an act of indulgent adultery is to be stopped by the elders.
Devarim states that if the woman cries for help and is heard and ignored. Those that ignore her are guilty the same.
Jurisdiction jurisprudence.

 

[ralliann]

Not His Place to Judge?
Being Elohim in flesh on earth as a witness does not cancel out His omnipotence.

He was not a lawful judge. He did not sit as a judge in the Sanhedrin.

 

[ralliann]

Yes judgement equally measured on the scale of justice.
Knowing full well that a witness of an act of indulgent adultery is to be stopped by the elders.
Devarim states that if the woman cries for help and is heard and ignored. Those that ignore her are guilty the same.
Jurisdiction jurisprudence.

And Jesus told them to carry out the law. With a caution to the witnesses.

So, it is about the witnesses and their testimony period.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

And Jesus told them to carry out the law. With a caution to the witnesses.
There are also bond servant wives, as well. Some freed and some not freed. Also men bondmen. If he is given a wife by his master, he goes out in freedom without his wife and children. They belong to his master. There were all kinds of things like that in the law. Plus, Israel at the time of Christ were subject to the Romans.
The Gospels show Jealousy of the rulers of Both John the baptist as well as Jesus. they were attempting to trick him concerning has authority to forgive sins. The people were amazed at his speaking as one having authority UNLIKE the scribes.

Righteous Judgement by Yeshua is what should be the focus. A Torah whole in the flesh.
Please take to heart that a death sentence is a serious matter. Which is covered in devarim. If need be I'll be glad to walk with you through the delicate matters of Torah halaqah

 

[ralliann]

I asked the question about it in Reply #4, but I did not say that the text mentions a man: that's really the whole reason for the question if you hadn't noticed.



Now you are willing to adjust the definition of adultery so that your paradigm may survive?

Adjust the definition of Adultery? I gave scripture of a betrothed woman servant, with a husband. who lies with a man not her husband. ADULTERY!

at happened to Lev 20:10 which was referenced to begin with in my Reply#4 response to you? Are you not willing to force your views to conform and comply with what is in the text of the John passage? According to the Torah both the adulterer and the adulteress are to receive the same punishment. Does the John passage not mention the Torah? (See again Jhn 8:5).

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

There is no way the Scribes and Pharisees would be testing him by leaving out the man if indeed the woman was caught in the act with the man. They are indeed testing him: but the art that a death sentence is a serious matter. Which is covered in devarim. If need be I'll be glad to walk with you through the delicate matters of Torah halaqah

Righteous Judgement by Yeshua is what should be the focus.

Yes, and he told them to carry out the law, with a caution to the witnesses.

A Torah whole in the flesh.
Please take to heart that a death sentence is a serious matter. Which is covered in devarim. If need be I'll be glad to walk with you through the delicate matters of Torah halaqah

Yes, the death sentence is a serious matter. Nobody said otherwise.
Good day and thanks for the discussion. I won't go any further as this in the Messianic forums, lest I get in trouble, for being seen to argue against a teaching here..

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

Adjust the definition of Adultery? I gave scripture of a betrothed woman servant, with a husband. who lies with a man not here husband. ADULTERY!



8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.




Yes, and he told them to carry out the law, with a caution to the witnesses.

Yes, the death sentence is a serious matter. Nobody said otherwise.
Good day and thanks for the discussion. I won't go any further as this in the Messianic forums, lest I get in trouble, for being seen to argue against a teaching here..

The only Authority here is

 

[daq]

Adjust the definition of Adultery? I gave scripture of a betrothed woman servant, with a husband. who lies with a man not here husband. ADULTERY!

Now that you have proven that you really do not have much of a grasp on the Torah I am quite satisfied to leave my discussion with you here where it stands. The reason being that I am pretty sure you have already been admonished about teaching and preaching in the MJ board if you are not an MJ, and yet you apparently refuse to comply with the SOP in this regard, and this is especially egregious when you enter a thread posted by another outsider who is simply innocently looking for an answer to a question from the MJ perspective, (which is perfectly acceptable on this board), and yet this is the very thing you seem to be wont to do when you do this.

Why is that? Why do you so strongly feel the need to preempt answers from the members of this MJ board when you yourself are not an MJ? Do you not realize moreover that you run the risk of deceiving the OP into believing that he or she is getting an answer from the MJ community here that is really not from this community but rather from another outsider who does not even agree with this faith group or community? However, in this thread, you have now proven why the SOP is upright and necessary for this community and board. I hope you will reconsider next time because, at least imo, you are not qualified either way to be teaching here for the simple lack of Torah understanding.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

Now that you have proven that you really do not have much of a grasp on the Torah I am quite satisfied to leave my discussion with you here where it stands. The reason being that I am pretty sure you have already been admonished about teaching and preaching in the MJ board if you are not an MJ, and yet you apparently refuse to comply with the SOP in this regard, and this is especially egregious when you enter a thread posted by another outsider who is simply innocently looking for an answer to a question from the MJ perspective, (which is perfectly acceptable on this board), and yet this is the very thing you seem to be wont to do when you do this.

Why is that? Why do you so strongly feel the need to preempt answers from the members of this MJ board when you yourself are not an MJ? Do you not realize moreover that you run the risk of deceiving the OP into believing that he or she is getting an answer from the MJ community here that is really not from this community but rather from another outsider who does not even agree with this faith group or community? However, in this thread, you have now proven why the SOP is upright and necessary for this community and board. I hope you will reconsider next time because, at least imo, you are not qualified either way to be teaching here for the simple lack of Torah understanding.

It's very well possible that @rallian has an Islamic upbringing.
So remember to lay a stone of peace

 

[ralliann]

It's very well possible that @rallian has an Islamic upbringing.
So remember to lay a stone of peace

No, I an not anything other than "christian", no Islamic upbringing. I am simply addressing Jesus response to the Judges and witnesses in judging a woman. In light of the Gospels, concerning his authority to forgive sins.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

No, I an not anything other than "christian", no Islamic upbringing. I am simply addressing Jesus response to the Judges and witnesses in judging a woman. In light of the Gospels, concerning his authority to forgive sins.

Where you are raised by has no shame.
There is a stone called , that is spiritual. A border where 2 brothers meet, share, and compare their maps of the adamah.

 

[ralliann]

Where you are raised by has no shame.
There is a stone called , that is spiritual. A border where 2 brothers meet, share, and compare their maps of the adamah.

I am not ashamed of my upbringing?

 

[daq]

It's very well possible that @rallian has an Islamic upbringing.
So remember to lay a stone of peace

Where you are raised by has no shame.
There is a stone called , that is spiritual. A border where 2 brothers meet, share, and compare their maps of the adamah.

She already testified concerning herself that she had no Islamic upbringing. So "the stone of peace" is to insinuate that you do not believe her testimony concerning herself? Yikes. I am starting to wonder if there might be a language barrier here.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

She already testified concerning herself that she had no Islamic upbringing. So "the stone of peace" is to insinuate that you do not believe her testimony concerning herself? Yikes. I am starting to wonder if there might be a language barrier here.

A lack of communication and candor yes. No isnt an answer that adults respond with. Adults clarify with details. So based on observation I made a comment.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

I am not ashamed of my upbringing?

Question?
Do you view dinah and shechem as a consenting relationship.

 

[ralliann]

Question?
Do you view dinah and shechem as a consenting relationship.

I am reluctant to go to far here in this forum.
She was not betrothed. For him to take her for a wife, yes I do. Jacob accepted it. They needed to become circumcised, and be one people as well.

 

[be(t)et lamed resh]

I am reluctant to go to far here in this forum.
She was not betrothed. For him to take her for a wife, yes I do. Jacob accepted it. They needed to become circumcised, and be one people as well.

Excellent answer