The Adulteress Brought Before Jesus

[Messy]

I'd have to be shown that. As I understand it they had the ability to do anything short of capital punishment. I'm not sure how to prove that one way or the other though.

I asked google.
http://www.voiceofjesus.org/Q-A_Files/q62stoningofstephen.html:
Though the evidence indicates that it was illegal under the Roman law for the Jews to execute anyone (John 18:30,31), it appears that the Jews sometimes resorted to stones and the Romans chose to ignore it. Jewish law mandated stoning for certain offenses such as adultery. From the Roman perspective, and that of Pilate the governor, there was no harm done provided no riots ensued.
John 18:31
Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”
Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death

 

[LoAmmi]

voiceofjesus.org? I would hardly call this an unbiased source when looking for this information. It's "evidence" is the New Testament.

 

[danny ski]

This is a capital case that could not be tried and resolved on the spot nor by the persons present. Everybody involved knew that. The story is so unlikely, I doubt it very much it happened.

 

[LoAmmi]

This is a capital case that could not be tried and resolved on the spot nor by the persons present. Everybody involved knew that. The story is so unlikely, I doubt it very much it happened.

As I said in my first post, it would be much like a group of people grabbing a criminal and dragging them off to the nearest street preacher.

 

[smaneck]

Oops, now you see how much I know about the Torah, but the other two should have been stoned then too.
But if a single prostitute had sex with a married man shouldn't she be stoned? What about Tamar?

Huh? Judah was not married when he had sex with Tamar, he was a widower as was Tamar. Furthermore since polygamy was allowed in those days, why would anyone worry about a married man having sex with a prostitute?

 

[Messy]

Huh? Judah was not married when he had sex with Tamar, he was a widower as was Tamar. Furthermore since polygamy was allowed in those days, why would anyone worry about a married man having sex with a prostitute?

Oh that was only for single women then who played the harlot. He wanted to have her killed for playing the harlot.

 

[smaneck]

The trap is, as it always was, trying to get him to either deny the Torah or to go against the Roman authority. The Jews did not have the right to carry out capital(sp?) punishment as a part of the Roman Empire. Had he said, Yes, let's stone her, they would have brought accusation against him to Pilate, if he says no, let's not (stone her, pay taxes, etc.) then he is proven to be a fraud because he is unwilling to follow Torah.

There is no evidence outside of the g

I asked google.
http://www.voiceofjesus.org/Q-A_Files/q62stoningofstephen.html:
Though the evidence indicates that it was illegal under the Roman law for the Jews to execute anyone (John 18:30,31), it appears that the Jews sometimes resorted to stones and the Romans chose to ignore it. Jewish law mandated stoning for certain offenses such as adultery. From the Roman perspective, and that of Pilate the governor, there was no harm done provided no riots ensued.
John 18:31
Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”
Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death

So the evidence is based solely on the a verse from John's Gospel not any Roman or Jewish primary source? Furthermore that verse doesn't actually say that it was Roman law which made it illegal.

 

[LoAmmi]

There is no evidence outside of the g

So the evidence is based solely on the a verse from John's Gospel not any Roman or Jewish primary source? Furthermore that verse doesn't actually say that it was Roman law which made it illegal.

Yes, the only sources I have ever found this in were the Gospels and Christian sources quoting the Gospels. I still believe it was a play to Roman audiences to justify their central religious figure being executed by the Roman Empire in the way they executed seditionists. Hard to convince people to follow your guy when from the outside it might look like he was against their country.

 

[bhsmte]

I saw this story come up the other day and I realized that something about it has bothered me for a long time and I finally put my finger on it. Taking the story at face value, all those people who brought the woman before Jesus were guilty of committing a sin just by doing that. The Torah talks about what happens when a person is accused of violating the Torah, and I can tell you the answer was not to drag the person in front of the nearest street preacher and ask them what should happen. You were supposed to let the authorities know what had happened and let the courts decide.

Is it possible that the nature of the story changes if you understand that every person in that crowd were committing a sin at that very moment as opposed to the story being against punishing criminals in general?

As an FYI, the story itself is no where to be found in the earliest copies of John and doesn't appear until hundreds of years later. For this reason, many scholars believes the story was a late fabrication by whomever placed it in a later copy.

 

[Hammster]

As an FYI, the story itself is no where to be found in the earliest copies of John and doesn't appear until hundreds of years later. For this reason, many scholars believes the story was a late fabrication by whomever placed it in a later copy.

And, it's shown up in other books in older manuscripts. If you remove it from the text, the text flows much better.

 

[smaneck]

Oh that was only for single women then who played the harlot. He wanted to have her killed for playing the harlot.

LOL. He wanted her killed because she shamed him, being his late sons' wife.

 

[Vollbracht]

I saw this story come up the other day and I realized that something about it has bothered me for a long time and I finally put my finger on it. Taking the story at face value, all those people who brought the woman before Jesus were guilty of committing a sin just by doing that. The Torah talks about what happens when a person is accused of violating the Torah, and I can tell you the answer was not to drag the person in front of the nearest street preacher and ask them what should happen. You were supposed to let the authorities know what had happened and let the courts decide.

Is it possible that the nature of the story changes if you understand that every person in that crowd were committing a sin at that very moment as opposed to the story being against punishing criminals in general?

It is not about the sin of man, but the mercy of God.

"None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, 'Live'; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, 'Live.'"

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

 

[LoAmmi]

It is not about the sin of man, but the mercy of God.

"None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee; but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the lothing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, 'Live'; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, 'Live.'"

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

I see no real connection between what you're quoting and the story. There was absolutely nothing about forgiveness or mercy in the text.

 

[Vollbracht]

Ok.

 

[LoAmmi]

Ok.

Here's the thing: Jesus doesn't answer the question. He merely says those without sin should cast the first stone. He doesn't say "Like the Father would never abandon Israel for being a harlot, we should not abandon this woman for her actions" or anything similar. Of course, that'd hurt the New Testament to bring up the fact that the Tanach speaks of HaShem never abandoning Israel.....

 

[Vollbracht]

Here's the thing: Jesus doesn't answer the question. He merely says those without sin should cast the first stone. He doesn't say "Like the Father would never abandon Israel for being a harlot, we should not abandon this woman for her actions" or anything similar.

You're right. Instead He says, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Of course, that'd hurt the New Testament to bring up the fact that the Tanach speaks of HaShem never abandoning Israel.....

Would it.

 

[bhsmte]

And, it's shown up in other books in older manuscripts. If you remove it from the text, the text flows much better.

Which other books?

 

[LoAmmi]

You're right. Instead He says, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

He can't. He didn't witness a thing and all he has to go on is some people violating the Torah by dragging her to him instead of the courts.

 

[Vollbracht]

He can't. He didn't witness a thing

I'll repeat: "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." And again, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

and all he has to go on is some people violating the Torah by dragging her to him instead of the courts.

"Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight,

that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them."

Look, this isn't about the Torah, this isn't about Israel, and this isn't about you or me. The sum of the matter is how can a Holy and Just God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob love such pathetic, sinful and unloveworthy creatures as man? Because God is Love and has sent His Son to redeem unto Salvation those who would but believe that He is, was, and ever will be by repenting of their own self-justification.

Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Hammster]

Here's the thing: Jesus doesn't answer the question. He merely says those without sin should cast the first stone. He doesn't say "Like the Father would never abandon Israel for being a harlot, we should not abandon this woman for her actions" or anything similar. Of course, that'd hurt the New Testament to bring up the fact that the Tanach speaks of HaShem never abandoning Israel.....

It's not actually in scripture.