Wrongy McWrongWrong
You are (nknowingly?) quoting commentaries and ideas from 400 years ago.
Get up to speed bonehead.
The absence of the male party regarding adultery is irrelevant,
even to Mosaic Law as
Hillel, Shemai, and
Jesus already knew:
The man is
ALWAYS stoned to death for adultery,
while the woman could be innocent, so a trial was required.
No trial at all was required for a man,
because he was AUTOMATICALLY put to death,
and there was no legal way to avoid the Death penalty.
In the case before Jesus,
it was likely that the man was already killed on the spot,
where he was 'caught in the act' by the husband.
The only legal question (remaining) was whether the woman was to be killed.
Because according the Country/City Law she could have screamed and been raped,
i.e., be INNOCENT.
The "country/city" clause in the Law has the obvious purpose of establishing common-sense conditions that protect a woman from both rape and the double-jeopardy of false accusations after the fact:
"If the young virgin was betrothed,
and a man...lays with her in the city,
...you shall stone them both to death...
but if in the countryside the man forces her,
then the man only shall die...
for she [obviously] cried out,
and there was no one to save her."
(Deut. 22:23-25)
Even though 'technically' they might claim this woman was "in the city", such a literal interpretation of the Law would be a monstrous breach of its intent. Obviously it could not apply fairly to a mute woman or someone who was gagged, threatened with a knife, or even blackmailed, to name just a few examples.
|
At the time of the Great Festivals, with over a MILLION visitors to Jerusalem,
most people were staying in tents (Festival of Booths) outside the city walls.
It is likely that the adultery took place among foreign Jews, the man was killed instantly
by her husband, and the woman was taken to the Legal Experts for consultation via Sanhedrin.
They simply stopped by Jesus teaching in the Temple for a legal opinion.
More preacher nonsense.
First understand the Law, then give a fruity sermon on it.
Call me when you get back from seminary, where they approve of homos.
Wrong again.
Its you and
your modern liberal personal agenda that is preventing you from
understanding that Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was not a liberal university setting.
The men had a real captive, they had the power and intent to rule according to Torah,
and they had the authority to kill if needed.
Your personal agenda and bias
prevents you from seeing the incident
as 1st century Jews actually saw it.
Good luck with that, when you can't even read the Mishnah, never mind the Torah.
