Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger

[laylow]

The Church, guided by the holy spirit, believes it does. That is worth more than anything any critic believes.

So the spirit can guide the church into choosing the correct scriptures, but cannot seem to guide its priests from child sex abuse and its leaders from covering it up? I am glad to see it has its priorities in order.

 

[jack63]

Thanks @Teek …Fr. Longenecker did a great job summarizing this one…he attributes the best interpretation to Dr Brant Pitre.

https://dwightlongenecker.com/why-did-jesus-write-with-his-finger-in-the-dust/

What happens to those who forsake the Lord? According to the prophet Jeremiah–and remember the Jews at this time knew their Old Testament forward and backward–those who forsake the Lord who is the Spring of Living Water–will have their names written in the dust. Dust you are and to dust your will return. I will show you fear in a handful of dust. By this prophetic sign Jesus is showing who he really is: The Lord who is the Spring of Living Water…he is also showing his accusers–who have planned to kill him–exactly who they are. They are the corrupt, immoral liars and murderers who the prophet Jeremiah condemned. I believe Jesus just wrote their names in the dust and they, knowing the prophecy, understood that he was holding up a mirror to their apostasy and corruption. On the second occasion he may also have recorded the details of their own liaisons with the woman. Notice that the adulterous man was not brought for judgement. Why? Because it was one of them? Probably. In this way Jesus recapitulates not only the prophet Jeremiah, but also the prophet Daniel in his encounter with the elders in the story of Susannah. So the writing in the dust is one of Jesus’ signs to show who he really is. He is the Lord, the Spring of Living Water. If you reject him your name will be written in the dust of destiny.

Zach:

The Church, guided by the holy spirit, believes it does. That is worth more than anything any critic believes.

Read the interpretation above. Perhaps this scripture is there, in part, to be a response to the abuse crisis!

 

[Gorgias]

So the spirit can guide the church into choosing the correct scriptures, but cannot seem to guide its priests from child sex abuse and its leaders from covering it up? I am glad to see it has its priorities in order.

I think we’ve discovered the “Godwin’s Law” for the 21st century: whenever someone doesn’t have a logical response, they can always retort to the non sequitur “but… pedophile priests!”

Here’s the thing: yes, the Church is protected from error in doctrinal statements of faith and morals. No, people do not receive special powers that mean that they can avoid all sin.

Are you interested in a serious discussion, or just looking to fling poo around? If the latter, then I’d advise that you go find other monkeys who enjoy that kind of thing.

Side Note: This beautiful story of Jesus and the adulterous woman is not in the original Gospel of John. It is not in any of the oldest or best manuscripts of John. Many textual critics do not believe it belongs in the bible.

Whether or not it was in original manuscripts of John can be debated, and is a matter of scholarly debate. Whether or not “it belongs in the Bible” isn’t the province or competence of ‘textual critics’…

 

[laylow]

Are you interested in a serious discussion, or just looking to fling poo around? If the latter, then I’d advise that you go find other monkeys who enjoy that kind of thing.

When I consider a discussion, I think of one where all parties are willing to think about both sides of the coin. I’m sure many believers have wondered to themselves why the spiritual guidance has restrictions when pertaining to important matters. Not allowing the thought to fester is basically forced compliance. I don’t think the world of 1984 is a healthy environment.

 

[laylow]

Here’s the thing: yes, the Church is protected from error in doctrinal statements of faith and morals. No, people do not receive special powers that mean that they can avoid all sin.

Avoid all sin? That is different then acting as a criminal organization and cover up felonies so they can continue to happen repeatedly. A claim of spiritual guidance should involve acting better than secular organizations, not worse than basically all of them!

 

[Gorgias]

When I consider a discussion, I think of one where all parties are willing to think about both sides of the coin.

Fair enough. Now, then… please explain what the clergy abuse scandal has to do with the canon of Scripture? I mean, if it’s “one side of the coin”, then you can show how it’s related. Otherwise, it’s just…

I’m sure many believers have wondered to themselves why the spiritual guidance has restrictions when pertaining to important matters.

Only if they don’t understand what the Church teaches. Which, if you haven’t picked up on it by now, can be summarized simply:

• The context of the Magisterium of the Church is only “the authoritative teaching of matters of faith and morals.”
• Each human is wounded by concupiscence, and must make the choice between acting virtuously or acting viciously on his own. It’s the individual’s choice, and his responsibility, to choose well. (And, he bears the responsibility for the consequences of his choices.)

That is different then acting as a criminal organization and cover up felonies so they can continue to happen repeatedly.

That’s quite a narrative. In order to prove it, of course, you’d need to show many things. Not only that felonies occurred, but also:

• they were covered up
• they were covered up deliberately, with the intent to cover up a crime and in order to avoid criminal charges
• they covered it up in order to enable themselves to commit future crime.

If you’ve got that evidence, please show your hand. Otherwise, it’s all still just …

 

[laylow]

Fair enough. Now, then… please explain what the clergy abuse scandal has to do with the canon of Scripture? I mean, if it’s “one side of the coin”, then you can show how it’s related. Otherwise, it’s just…

I thought it was fairly clear. If the spirit could guide scripture, why can’t it guide its leaders on subjects of morality? Or would it make more sense to question whether there is really any spiritual guiding going on?

Only if they don’t understand what the Church teaches. Which, if you haven’t picked up on it by now, can be summarized simply:

They could understand it and still question it. Or is that off limits?

That’s quite a narrative. In order to prove it, of course, you’d need to show many things. Not only that felonies occurred, but also:

• they were covered up
• they were covered up deliberately , with the intent to cover up a crime and in order to avoid criminal charges
• they covered it up in order to enable themselves to commit future crime.

If you’ve got that evidence, please show your hand. Otherwise, it’s all still just …

The church has admitted to some level of cover-up, have they not?

 

[Gorgias]

If the spirit could guide scripture, why can’t it guide its leaders on subjects of morality?

The Spirit always guides. The question is whether anyone listens.

The Church doesn’t teach that people receive immunity from committing sin by virtue of any position, vocation, or grace.

Or would it make more sense to question whether there is really any spiritual guiding going on?

Only if you continue to ignore what the Church actually teaches. Then you can posit any wild theory you wish. (It won’t make it reasonable, of course, but it’s a free country. You can spout whatever you want. )

The church has admitted to some level of cover-up, have they not?

Not of the sort you’re positing.

 

[Canvas]

Yes, I had that thought too at mass. Why were just the women stoned? Men were involved too

In the homily that I heard on this Gospel, the Priest actually brought this point up. If she was caught in the act of adultery, why was only she being taken to be stoned to death?

 

[laylow]

The Spirit always guides. The question is whether anyone listens.

The Church doesn’t teach that people receive immunity from committing sin by virtue of any position, vocation, or grace.

How do we know when someone listens?

Only if you continue to ignore what the Church actually teaches. Then you can posit any wild theory you wish. (It won’t make it reasonable, of course, but it’s a free country. You can spout whatever you want. )

Just because the theory doesn’t agree with the church, doesn’t mean it is wild. If church teaching has philosophical challenges, I think they are fair game for discussion.

Not of the sort you’re positing.

What part did I get wrong?

 

[Gorgias]

How do we know when someone listens?

We don’t, per se. We can observe their actions, and that’s about it.

If church teaching has philosophical challenges, I think they are fair game for discussion.

On what basis would you challenge the teaching “the Holy Spirit guides the teaching of the Church”? Or “each individual person must decide for himself whether he commits sin or not”? Those are the only two principles up for debate in this context.

What part did I get wrong?

• Acting as a criminal organization
• acting so that they can continue to commit further crimes

The court of public opinion keeps making these claims, but no one has proven them, or presented evidence that demonstrates that these claims have merit.

 

[AmericanPatriot]

I too find correspondence between God inscribing stone tablets with covenant law using His finger and Jesus writing in the earth with His finger (in both John 8:6 and John 8:8 as the Cambridge MS. inserts). It was a powerful authoritative act.

 

[Glennon_P]

The curious thing is the prohibition against Jews executing without Roman approval under Roman rule. They went to Pilate for permission to execute Jesus yet here and Stephen they didn’t get approval. Perhaps Rome looked the other way if the person was not well known.

I’ve often wondered that myself. One theory I’ve heard is that perhaps the Romans gave the Jews permission to execute followers of Jesus they thought worthy of death, in order to keep civil order. Not sure I buy that, but it does make some sense.

 

[Pattylt]

I’m not completely sure of this answer but I recal learning that when it came to religious violations, the Romans allowed the Jews to handle it. If it involved Roman rule then it needed to be decided by Roman courts.

So moral decisions would be left to the Jews but civil violations would be decided by Romans.

 

[AlbMagno]

That makes sense, but Jesus seems to have been charged with blasphemy…

 

[Pattylt]

Blasphemy by the Jews but sedition (claiming to be king of the Jews) by Rome.