No, the story of the adulterer was meant to convey how legalism had replaced mercy (Jesus was trying to say to all those who were attempting to stone her that they too probably had committed sins the likes of which deserved stoning). If you see at the end of the story Jesus turns to the woman and says “go and sin no more”. Adultery is and always was a sin.
Could it be that what Jesus is repudiating is the Pharisees’ interpretation of that Law? And that is what evolved into something it wasn’t supposed to be? And *that’s *why God came to us in human form? So that we could fully understand the intentions and will of God from a human perspective and not just a legalistic view?
I know those verses, they speak of adultery, not rape. Where does it say a person who is raped is impure AND should be punished by stoning???
Because in the Law it actually says that at least a woman ( a man?) should have a trial with two pure witnesses, hence the exact same thing Jesus called for in the Gospel of John.
God issued stoning for such an act because the times were so bad that the only way in effect to keep the Jews in line was to instill fear (it was meant more than likely as a deterrent) so that they would be uncorrupted by the influences surrounding them (just read about the various tribes of that time and you will understand what I mean). Therefore, the practice was not meant to be something continuous (but only in direct relation to the times). Also, recollect there were cases of adultery committed in the OT and yet these people were not stoned? David and Bathsheba are a prime example of this. Furthermore, do not isolate this one law from the rest of OT scripture which also expresses mercy, understanding, and other such virtues, that is, the Jews were exhorted to use their judgement, it was not has if they were mindless robots who did not take into consideration context and/or mercy (hence mercy should supercede legalism and this was what was shown through Jesus with the adulterer). I believe God in many ways had no choice considering the level of misdeeds and evil prevailing on earth to issue such edicts. For the sake of all people who would be born God had to ensure that the Jews would be pure for through these people would Jesus be born to. With the advent of Jesus, we were no longer bound by mosaic laws because we had the Holy Spirit to lead us into all righteousness. Christians did not consider stoning necessary because God did not consider stoning necessary, at this point in time. It’s very hard to put God on the judgement seat when I lack omniscent powers to fully understand what He did and why he did it (but these are some of the reasons I think he did).
This is 292nd Mitzvot:
“You must not execute anybody without due proper trial and conviction. (Which required two pure witnesses)”
If they were doing so, they would be called out on it, just as Jesus did in John.
Hi Josie
I am here to tell the truth about the gospel. Different approaches reach different people.whatever
How can I possibly know that you know anything about Christianity unless you tell me? I cannot read your mind. How am I to know that you have already heard all quotations from Scripture about eternity on these forums so you are already familiar with them and do not want to hear them repeated?
Well, why did you believe he was?
really … I’ll go through and check it out. If that’s the case it just bolsters my point even more. Didn’t think this sort of thing happened anymore
Francis, you didn’t read his other posts did you? I did. I’m glad he’s no longer with us. And furthermore who comes to a Catholic forum with the “religious affiliation” he had. Sorry! He got what he deserved.really … I’ll go through and check it out. If that’s the case it just bolsters my point even more. Didn’t think this sort of thing happened anymore
No worries, I get the hint & I’ll leave you guys to your, well whatever it is you guys do (I guess the moderators could have simply booted me; I’m not sure why they’re using the unusual tactic of overt censorship).
he was charged with inappropriate relations with young boys. He got off … but doesn’t money always get you off (unless of course your crime is screwing over other rich people). I guess you think OJ was innocent as well?
Francis, if your child had been molested by someone would you accept money and then let him off the hook, so that he could prey on other children? And no I don’t believe OJ was innocent.he was charged with inappropriate relations with young boys. He got off … but doesn’t money always get you off (unless of course your crime is screwing over other rich people). I guess you think OJ was innocent as well?