ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
The woman was being accused of adultery only.
On the adultery accusation, they were asking Jesus about what the law said.
They thought He would surely uphold the law.
And He did. It was they that didn't.
A proper legal case had not been presented correctly per the law.
Under the law, she could not be condemned without a proper legal case.
In their zeal to trip up Jesus per the law, they tripped themselves up by not following the law.
Use the other sinful woman in Luke 7 as the example.
Christ Jesus said the following to her:
(Luke 7:48) Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven...
musterion
Well-known member
Show where she was repentant and that He told her she was forgiven, and we'll accept it.
musterion
Well-known member
And why?
He did not tell that woman "Go and sin no more," He pronounced her forgiven because of her faith.
He did NOT say that to the adulteress, who showed (as far as recorded) no sign of repentance or of faith. What He DID tell he amounts to, "Don't do it again!" because next time there probably won't be a technicality.
You are not worthy to handle the Word of God.
andyc
New member
All of that is irrelevant to the important fact that, the law condemned the woman as an adulteress, but Jesus didn't.
Does this mean that she was forgiven by Jesus or not?
If not, you must be saying that, although Jesus didn't condemn her, she was stilled condemned under the law as an adulteress.
andyc
New member
No, it's your MAD that is the problem.
You have been brainwashed into believing no one received grace and forgiveness before Paul, and that no one received the wrath of God after Paul.
That's why you deny the grace and forgivness given to people by Jesus Himself before Paul, and why you deny the wrath of God upon the Jews in 70AD after Paul.
You're MAD is a mess.
musterion
Well-known member
She saw and acknowledged Who and What He was. The adulteress, as far as is recorded, did not.
How hard is that for you to understand?
musterion
Well-known member
No MAD that I'm aware of believes anything like that outside of, maybe, Acts 28 universalists, who are not represented (afaik) on TOL. But you keep on lying about us.
Besides, you're the one who says the wrath of God was fully spent in 70 and so we're now in the Kingdom of Christ whether it looks like it or not.
Keep lying. You'll answer for it.
We'll see.
andyc
New member
What's the alternative?
The law condemned the woman as an adulteress, but Jesus didn't condemn her?
This shows a conflict of attitudes between the law and Jesus, when from your perspective they're supposed to be in agreement.
If she's an adulteress condemned under the law, what were her options if she was repentant?
According to you, there were no options. She was doomed.
No, silly.
Per the law, one is not condemned unless proven guilty per the law.
They were not following the law as instructed for an adultery accusation.
Trying to do away with the law in this instance is ludicrous.
The whole ordeal was concerning the law.
andyc
New member
Because there is no forgiveness for the adulteress under the law. So what was the basis for Jesus to forgive her?
musterion
Well-known member
COULDN'T condemn her. Without the man present, He would have violated His own Law by condemning her.
No it doesn't.
The woman may have believed later. Maybe she didn't. We can't know.
But as far as what the Record DOES say, she appears to have gone away in unbelief. Relieved that she wasn't stoned, sure, and maybe convicted...but no indication she repented, so no indication that He forgave her.
Sorry you don't like that that's what it says, but that's what it says.
musterion
Well-known member
Yup. The Pharisees' appeal to the Law to trap Him was hypocritical and showed how lawless they actually were. Just like the ones here who deny what the Law actually SAID.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Andyc, Tet and Interplanner routinely don't like what the Bible says -
andyc
New member
They were not intending it to be an official trial. If the woman was caught in the act of adultery, and Jesus didn't challenge this, what would this mean for the woman if the Mosaic law were to be applied?
Now, if they were intending to take this all the way, they could have done, and she would have been put to death if they were not under Roman occupation. The witnesses would have been gathered, the man would have been brought along as well etc etc.
What the pharisees wanted, was for Jesus to either agree with the Mosaic law, or be exposed as a fraud. Every commentary on the planet, and every study bible will tell you this because it's so obvious. But it's devastating to mad.
Yeah, the law condemns adulterers and adulteresses.
musterion
Well-known member
How was David forgiven his adultery, murder, covetousness, etc?
What's the one clear, Biblical difference between David and the adulterous woman?
(and it isn't that David was a man or the king, either)
musterion
Well-known member
He did to her. The Pharisees had already dropped their rocks and slunk off. She had no more reason to be standing around naked in broad daylight.
Why don't you try to think for once.