Attempted stoning of the adultress - the Law

[jcrichton]

See what I wrote at my last post. In any case, Mark notes immediately after narrating the Temple incident: “And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished at his teaching.”

…it is that fear (being replaced as religious heads) of the Jewish people that prompted them to seek a terminal end to the thorn on their side–interstingly enough, as with the census, temporal accidents emerged and converged in order to bring Prophecy to fruition!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

I concur… we can see a little bit of his mind set as he unwillingly prophesied that it was better for one man to die for the nation–this demonstrates how quickly he moves to cut down the opposition!

Maran atha!

Angel

Indeed!

 

[patrick457]

further, had Rome though of Jesus as a threat, Pontious Pilate would have been put to death as he insisted that a placard be placed on Jesus’ Cross “King of the Jews.”

Maran atha!

Angel

Which is really a sick joke on Pilate’s part. But then again, as is made clear by Philo and Josephus, he’s probably not a really nice man.

In some (but perhaps by no means all) executions, it seems to have been customary for the victim’s crimes to be written on some sort of sign, sometimes called a titulus, which was then either hung around the victim’s neck or carried before him as he walked to his death. This served to publicize to all what crimes the victim have committed. By writing “King of the Judaeans” on the placard, Pilate is making it seem that Jesus’ crime was not so much claiming to be a king, but being a king. It’s as if he was proclaiming: “Look, Jews, here’s your ‘king’: we Rome are now in charge.” I mean, Jesus was even crucified in the middle of two brigands: how’s that for a royal entourage?

Crucifixion after all was a sort of state-sponsored terrorism done to both display the might of the Empire and discourage its subjects from disrupting Roman law and order, keeping them in line. It was a cruel show designed to shame both the victim and his associates in a mock ‘elevation’.

 

[jcrichton]

Which is really a sick joke on Pilate’s part. But then again, as is made clear by Philo and Josephus, he’s probably not a really nice man.

In some (but perhaps by no means all) executions, it seems to have been customary for the victim’s crimes to be written on some sort of sign, sometimes called a titulus, which was then either hung around the victim’s neck or carried before him as he walked to his death. This served to publicize to all what crimes the victim have committed. By writing “King of the Judaeans” on the placard, Pilate is making it seem that Jesus’ crime was not so much claiming to be a king, but being a king. It’s as if he was proclaiming: “Look, Jews, here’s your ‘king’: we Rome are now in charge.” I mean, Jesus was even crucified in the middle of two brigands: how’s that for a royal entourage?

Crucifixion after all was a sort of state-sponsored terrorism done to both display the might of the Empire and discourage its subjects from disrupting Roman law and order, keeping them in line. It was a cruel show designed to shame both the victim and his associates in a mock ‘elevation’.

…didn’t know that… I always wondered why there would be a sing posted… but my take was that either Pilate was covering his back in case that any word got back to Rome that he was siding with Jesus, a man that claimed to be king or he was giving the Jews’ religious an “in your face” experience as everyone that got to view Christ’s Cross would read the sign (Latin, Hebrew and Arameic?) and know that Jesus’ claim to the throne of David was accomplished even though only in His Death…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[patrick457]

…didn’t know that… I always wondered why there would be a sing posted… but my take was that either Pilate was covering his back in case that any word got back to Rome that he was siding with Jesus, a man that claimed to be king or he was giving the Jews’ religious an “in your face” experience as everyone that got to view Christ’s Cross would read the sign (Latin, Hebrew and Arameic?) and know that Jesus’ claim to the throne of David was accomplished even though only in His Death…

Maran atha!

Angel

The Gospels really depict the Passion in terms of dramatic irony. Historically Pilate may have intended the sign “This is Jesus King of the Judaeans” as a gesture of contempt, but the Evangelists wants the audience, who is ‘in the know’, to react, “Ah, but He is a King!” It therefore becomes an ironic proclamation of who Jesus really is.

 

[jcrichton]

The Gospels really depict the Passion in terms of dramatic irony. Historically Pilate may have intended the sign “This is Jesus King of the Judaeans” as a gesture of contempt, but the Evangelists wants the audience, who is ‘in the know’, to react, “Ah, but He is a King!” It therefore becomes an ironic proclamation of who Jesus really is.

…regadless of the intent, I see a very direct connection to 1 Samuel 8:4-21–the Father is rejected as Israel’s King, ditto the Son!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Arturo_Ortiz]

i think i like you, cause i like how you put it. i am not so clear when i use as many words, i admire that you are. how is it i still dont know what it is you have to believe to be catholic? i’m doing better since i came to this website, I’ve gotten through a breakdown and some family problems. i think people here are praying for me. i dont know yet if i can be catholic but i feel more protected by God since i been on this site. i enjoyed the things you can watch the other day, there are videos explain things like mass, and radio brocasts and magazine articles not just postings. i’ve got a long way to go though, cause no one has given me an outline of what the beliefs you have to say amen honestly are exactly. but i am doing so much better since i been on this site. i like you guys, even the people with the challenges who arent catholic here.

One thing you can do to better understand the Catholic church is to read the Catechism of the Catholic church. I have yet to read it as well.

 

[Arturo_Ortiz]

originally posted by guestseekibg
i think i like you, cause i like how you put it. i am not so clear when i use as many words, i admire that you are. how is it i still dont know what it is you have to believe to be catholic? i’m doing better since i came to this website, I’ve gotten through a breakdown and some family problems. i think people here are praying for me. i dont know yet if i can be catholic but i feel more protected by God since i been on this site. i enjoyed the things you can watch the other day, there are videos explain things like mass, and radio brocasts and magazine articles not just postings. i’ve got a long way to go though, cause no one has given me an outline of what the beliefs you have to say amen honestly are exactly. but i am doing so much better since i been on this site. i like you guys, even the people with the challenges who arent catholic here.

One thing you can do is to read the catechism of the Catholic church. I have yet to read it.

 

[jcrichton]

One thing you can do is to read the catechism of the Catholic church. I have yet to read it.

…remember, you do not need to read the whole book in order to engage the Faith… we can read it as a Bible companion and as a resource-book (reading through the pertinent topics of the day or the issues that seem to confound us).

…don’t forget, even the longest trip starts with but a single step!

God Bless!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AdesteFideles]

If the Law of Moses said that adultrerers should be stoned, why did Jesus stop this from happening if he came to fulfill the Law?

I would just briefly point out three things.

(a) This particular story is unfortunately highly doubtful insofar as inclusion in the autograph of John is concerned. The textual witness for this section of John is quite late.

(b) You have to keep in mind that the Torah mitzvot (commandments) are understood today to have been interpreted in light of tradition. You will hear many Jews argue that these mitzvot, in point of fact, make little sense without specifics as to how they are to be carried out; for example, where does the Torah explain what circumcision is, or what t’fillim are? When God says You will slaughter the bull in the way I have commanded you, where is this command to be found? How should one slaughter the bull?

In the case of adultery, the Jewish law – if it has been successfully recorded – was a bit more nuanced that this story might insinuate. Firstly, adultery was when a married woman had relations with someone who was not her husband. Secondly, it was a capital offence only when witnessed by two individuals. Thirdly, these witnesses had to have warned the woman that she was committing a crime punishable by death. Fourthly, her response had to have amounted to, I don’t care, I’m doing it anyway. The death penalty itself was for willful disregard for and apathy in regard to the Law of God.

(c) I would posit that Christ fulfilled specifically point (4) above in (b), by His salvific work.