ECT Mad finds itself in the trash by applying simple logic

[andyc]

Say it in one word. You know the word. Use it.

What did the woman not do, as far as the Text says?

The difference, if I'm reading you correctly, is that David was directly answerable to God. The woman caught in the act of adultery was also directly answerable to God, but in her case, Jesus was not the judge, he was an advocate. Forgiveness was offered. But David was under the weight of the law. And the judgement of God broke out on his family.

 

[andyc]

When used lawfully.
What they were doing was not lawful.

What in the world do you mean, "when used lawfully?"
That's complete and utter tripe. When people have no regard for the law, it really doesn't matter what they do, does it?
Those who sin in the law will be judged by the law. Those who outside the law, will be judged outside the law. And so conscience is the key here.
When a person is under the law, the law is in their conscience. They know that they are violating a command of God, and immediately they are under condemnation. You can't say that, if a technicality gives them a lucky escape regarding punishment, it's suddenly going give them a clear conscience. It that were to happen, such a person is a dispiser of the law, and no different to a pagan.

 

[andyc]

There is no record of that happening. Speculation.
And it is not about how "I think" it should be done, it is about how it should be done per the law.

A theological trap about the law.

You just don't want to see the merciful compassionate forgiving Jesus throwing rocks at a woman. This alone tells you your understanding of the situation is way wide of the mark. Jesus did not come to judge, but to forgive.

 

[andyc]

Chapter and verse proving that.

Read Hebrews.

 

[andyc]

When she repents.

The woman caught in the act shows no sign that she repented, either.

So the workerbees are insisting on her being forgiven without any evidence of her having changed her mind about anything, as far as the Text tells us.

What's does repentance have to do with anything?
She was guilty of the sin of adultery. She knew it, Jesus knew it, God knew it. If she's under the law, where does she find forgiveness for committing a sin deserving of death? If she came to Jesus and said I'm guilty, and Jesus was upholding the letter of the law, he'd have no choice but to turn her away, because their is no forgiveness for this sin under the law.

This is the very thing that you guys are blind to.

 

[Tambora]

It is astonishing that the MAD folks who say the Law runs until early Acts have no idea that the acts or righteousness of Christ are imputed/credited/transferred/accounted to those who believe.

Is there another Bible out there that people are reading?

Another lie from you about MADist.

I have probably quoted Rom 5 more than any other scripture here at TOL.
Why you insists on making stuff up is beyond me.

 

[Nang]

The Holy Standards (Law) of God are eternal. The Law remained in effect after the fall and it remains in effect, after a soul is saved by grace.

Just like the law of gravity does not disappear when it is defied by a rocket ship launch.

The new Covenant of Grace overrules all condemnation of the Law according to the old Covenant of Works, but that does not mean the cause and effects of sin no longer apply to our daily lives.

The third use of the Law is still our moral guide, even when our souls have been rescued from hell and the second death, by the grace and works of Jesus Christ.

Christians are given a desire to live holy, morally, and lawfully.

 

[andyc]

The asinine OP refuted in one sentence:

By refusing to condemn the woman caught in adultery, Christ upheld the Law.

Pity I wasn't actually talking about the woman caught in the act of adultery. I was talking about a different woman :chuckle:
That makes you look a bit stupid, doesn't it?

 

[Tambora]

What's does repentance have to do with anything?
She was guilty of the sin of adultery. She knew it, Jesus knew it, God knew it. If she's under the law, where does she find forgiveness for committing a sin deserving of death? If she came to Jesus and said I'm guilty, and Jesus was upholding the letter of the law, he'd have no choice but to turn her away, because their is no forgiveness for this sin under the law.

This is the very thing that you guys are blind to.

You seem to be blind to the very thing that was questioned about ------ the law concerning how to handle an accusation of adultery.
It was not a question about Christ's divine knowledge, it was a question of the law.

 

[andyc]

I don't see where you can DEAL with anything? You just don't have what it takes, buddy.

For the second time in a month you put me on ignore yesterday, and you still can't ignore me :chuckle: Love it.

For my money's worth, you've got to be the most pointless individual on this forum.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Pity I wasn't actually talking about the woman caught in the act of adultery. I was talking about a different woman :chuckle:
That makes you look a bit stupid, doesn't it?

Nah, you already have a Monopoly on that.

 

[andyc]

It's a shame you don't spend more time and effort studying the writings of Paul in order to gain the knowledge of how to become a member of the "Body of Christ?" Matthew through John was pertaining to the Lost sheep of the House of Israel. It's best for you, to gain a full understanding of the Grace of God through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In this "Dispensation of Grace" we don't live by the Law, but, by faith in Christ. You seem to have a desire to focus on the Law, which was never given to the Gentiles, neither did they ever live under it.

:spam:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

For the second time in a month you put me on ignore yesterday, and you still can't ignore me :chuckle: Love it.

For my money's worth, you've got to be the most pointless individual on this forum.

And, don't think I don't appreciate that, especially coming from you.

 

[andyc]

You seem to be blind to the very thing that was questioned about ------ the law concerning how to handle an accusation of adultery.
It was not a question about Christ's divine knowledge, it was a question of the law.

Yeah, whether or not Jesus agreed with what the Mosaic law said about an adulteress.
Jesus said, "he who is without sin cast the first stone". So from his perspective, she was busted. Even Jesus knew it, it's only you and your mad buddies who can't accept, otherwise mad is trashed.
From a legal perspective, she'd had it. Before Jesus could offer forgiveness to the her, he had to remove the condemnation of the law on her by her unbelieving accusers.

You are clinging to technicalities because you've got nothing else to cling to. Your theology is shot, you are utterly confused, and you're just throwing out any old nonsense, and looking more and more stupid with every post. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.

 

[Tambora]

You just don't want to see the merciful compassionate forgiving Jesus throwing rocks at a woman.

And you are a liar for saying that.
Jesus would not uphold the law being handled unlawfully.

This alone tells you your understanding of the situation is way wide of the mark. Jesus did not come to judge, but to forgive.

I don't add things to scripture and say the woman was forgiven for her sins when scripture does not say that.

 

[andyc]

And, don't think I don't appreciate that, especially coming from you.

Well it may make paddy jane jealous.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Well it may make paddy jane jealous.

How's your "Mentor" Benny Hinn doing?

 

[Tambora]

You are clinging to technicalities because you've got nothing else to cling to.

I have stated what the scripture says about the story of the adulterous woman.

 

[andyc]

And you are a liar for saying that.
Jesus would not uphold the law being handled unlawfully.

He who is without sin, cast the first stone.

There's no way around this, however hard you wriggle.

I don't add things to scripture and say the woman was forgiven for her sins when scripture does not say that.

Common sense tells you she was offered forgiveness, otherwise it would have pointless to say "go and sin no more".
What would have happened if she didn't sin anymore?
She still has to have that adultery forgiven, and what was the basis of her forgiveness? It certainly wan't in the Mosaic law.

 

[andyc]

How's your "Mentor" Benny Hinn doing?

He's pretty pointless, but not as pointless as you.