Paul cant remember what happened

[Hellisreal]

Yes, they were both to be stoned. And yet they brought no man up. Again, I think it’s because the man could have testified on his own behalf, whereas the woman couldn’t.

Now, John chapter 8 was in all the original transcipts. There was a time (I don’t know when) that this story was left out of the Scriptures, because the Church felt that it looked like Jesus condoned adultery (which, of course, He didn’t). Then the story was correctly added back into Scriptures.

That makes more sense than anything else so far.



Wait- but if the man said he did not do anything…and they believed him…

 

[NotWorthy]

That makes more sense than anything else so far.

Scott Hahn wrote about this in “Scripture Matters”, but hence, I can’t find my copy of this book. I’ll see if he included it in his “Ignatius 2nd Edition Bible Study” tonight.

 

[Hellisreal]

Scott Hahn wrote about this in “Scripture Matters”, but hence, I can’t find my copy of this book. I’ll see if he included it in his “Ignatius 2nd Edition Bible Study” tonight.

Wait=

see my addition in editing!

 

[Fidelis]

Paul seems to have some confusion about what he did.

Gal 1:16-17 seems to say he did not go to Jerusalem after his conversion.

Acts 9:26 seems to say that was the very first thing he did do after conversion.

What’s up with Paul?

Hellisreal,
I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but you seem to be posting a lot of questions about “Bible difficulties” – the very same questions one sees time and again in books or websites by atheists that try to ridicule Christianity by making the Scriptures or Church teaching look ridiculous.

Perhaps you need to invest in a book like one of these:

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-9544667-7917732?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bible+difficulties&Go.x=5&Go.y=11

 

[quasimodo]

Okay then, give me a “rational” explaination for why the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53-8:12

Where was the man who would have been held just as guilty and would have also qualifyed for stoning? Huh? They catch HER in the Act, YET let the guy off the hook? So, they either did not like women, or its a story that sounds nice, tells a lesson, but NEVER happened!

from the text we don’t know for sure. I’m ok with that.

It sounds like a set up to me. How many times do you think they would have dragged a woman caught in adutry to an itinerant preacher for judgment? Nah - they would have followed the law without recourse to the holy-man du jour. But this One was different. They needed to get somethig on him to counter his message - prove he was a fraud.

What of the man caught in adultry? Maybe he was in on it. Maybe he got away. Maybe he did not even exist and they were just grabbing a woman they did not like - perhaps one who they knew to be guilty, but could never catch. We don’t know and it doesn’t matter.

 

[Rebecca_New]

Some of you are reading the Bible like a history book. Please do not forget that this is the Holy Spirits way of invoking us to turn to Him for the enlightenments. It took me 7 years to find out who the two men in white garments were at the tomb. I didn’t figure it out, the Holy Spirit led me to the answer, and when I found the answer my yearning was gone, and I knew that it was so.

 

[Hellisreal]

from the text we don’t know for sure. I’m ok with that.

It sounds like a set up to me. How many times do you think they would have dragged a woman caught in adutry to an itinerant preacher for judgment? Nah - they would have followed the law without recourse to the holy-man du jour. But this One was different. They needed to get somethig on him to counter his message - prove he was a fraud.

What of the man caught in adultry? Maybe he was in on it. Maybe he got away. Maybe he did not even exist and they were just grabbing a woman they did not like - perhaps one who they knew to be guilty, but could never catch. We don’t know and it doesn’t matter.

I agree it does not matter to our faith. But, maybe you dont see why I am asking these things.

In any case, do you know if this story was in the earliest known manuscripts that we know about? Or was it in the later ones?

I would appreciate an answer to that. Thank you.

 

[Hellisreal]

Hellisreal,
I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but you seem to be posting a lot of questions about “Bible difficulties” – the very same questions one sees time and again in books or websites by atheists that try to ridicule Christianity by making the Scriptures or Church teaching look ridiculous.

Perhaps you need to invest in a book like one of these:

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-9544667-7917732?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bible+difficulties&Go.x=5&Go.y=11

Thank you, I am aware of books that address these issues, but you cant ask for clarification from a book. It tells you what it tells you, and if you dont get the full answer, you buy another and another.

Not saying I wont do that, but where to start? I will check it out though.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Some of you are reading the Bible like a history book. Please do not forget that this is the Holy Spirits way of invoking us to turn to Him for the enlightenments. It took me 7 years to find out who the two men in white garments were at the tomb. I didn’t figure it out, the Holy Spirit led me to the answer, and when I found the answer my yearning was gone, and I knew that it was so.

Hmmm. I’m not sure if I would want the yearning to ever go away… not entirely anyway. In Heaven I believe we will further understand even moreso who those two men in white gartments were. Ok, back to the topic.

As far as Paul not remembering? Well, perhaps we’ll know exactly what was going on once we are in heaven…but then again, maybe God won’t allow us that bit of info.

 

[Hellisreal]

Hmmm. I’m not sure if I would want the yearning to ever go away… not entirely anyway. In Heaven I believe we will further understand even moreso who those two men in white gartments were. Ok, back to the topic.

As far as Paul not remembering? Well, perhaps we’ll know exactly what was going on once we are in heaven…but then again, maybe God won’t allow us that bit of info.

I know that we will know more in heaven. But, if I dont even try to find things out and use that as a fall back, I just cant be happy with myself.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I know that we will know more in heaven. But, if I dont even try to find things out and use that as a fall back, I just cant be happy with myself.

Ever consider the possibility that God won’t allow what you want to know once we are in Heaven?

Nonetheless, I encourage you to delve deeper into your understanding of the faith. Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. God bless!

 

[Hellisreal]

Ever consider the possibility that God won’t allow what you want to know once we are in Heaven?

Nonetheless, I encourage you to delve deeper into your understanding of the faith. Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. God bless!

 

[NotWorthy]

From Ignatius Study Bible regarding the story of the woman caught in adultery.:

Some ancient manuscriptrs of the Fourth Gospel omit this episode entirely. Ohters palce it elsewhere in John or even in the Gospel of Luke. According to the Council of Trent, the official canon of the Scriptures corresponds to everything included in the Latin Vulgate edition (Sess. 4, Dec. 1). This translation includes the episode as canonical.

 

[Hellisreal]

From Ignatius Study Bible regarding the story of the woman caught in adultery.:

So I was right!!!



It was not in the ancient manuscripts!!!

But, The church has spoken, and I am loyal to the Church!

Thank you Not Worthy!

You have been very helpful and went out of your way to get that for me.

Yippe!

 

[NotWorthy]

From Ignatius Study Bible regarding the woman.

1. Some argue that Jesus is overturning the death penalty. The Pharisees would have discredited him for contradicting Moses.

1. Others argue that Jesus permits the adultery to walk free because no witnesses are present to testify against her. This wrongly implies that Jesus would have been caught off guard if the witnesses who caught the adulteress in the act did come forward.

1. Others argue that Jesus brings the examination to a halt because the woman’s partner is absent and so the process of incrimination cannot proceed. This could not have been so, first, because of a clear precedent in the OT where Susanna is falsely condemned for adultery without first establishing who and where her partner was (Dan. 13:34-41).

Against these views, it must be stressed that Jesus eludes the trap entirely - he neither authorizes the stoning (incriminating himself) nor contradicts Moses (compromising his teaching). The genius of his response is that it turns the tables on the Pharisees and forces them into their own trap. Although the Pharisees probably considered themselves sinless (like Saul, Phil 3:5-6), and thus qualified to administer the stoning, they realize that executing the adulteress will bring Rome’s reprisal on them instead of Jesus, who is not truly authorizing the stoning because he does not truly think the Pharisees are without sin (John 9:40-41). On the other hand, by restraining themselves and walking away, the Pharisees are made to look like sinners and compromisers in the eyes of the crowd.

 

[NotWorthy]

So I was right!!!



It was not in SOME OF the ancient manuscripts!!!

But, The church has spoken, and I am loyal to the Church!

Thank you Not Worthy!

You have been very helpful and went out of your way to get that for me.

Yippe!

Hey, no problem! Good to see that we’re still cool with each other! I wasn’t sure after “Did God make a Mistake”.

Keep up the Faith!!!

 

[Hellisreal]

From Ignatius Study Bible regarding the woman.

So then, the Pharisees were confident that Jesus would not allow it then.?

That is how the last post reads to me Not Worthy. What do you think?

If they were worried about Rome’s reprisals…

What do you think?

 

[Hellisreal]

Hey, no problem! Good to see that we’re still cool with each other! I wasn’t sure after “Did God make a Mistake”.

Keep up the Faith!!!

No way! Yes we are cool.
Plus, you dont like NAB either.

 

[NotWorthy]

So then, the Pharisees were confident that Jesus would not allow it then.?

That is how the last post reads to me Not Worthy. What do you think?

If they were worried about Rome’s reprisals…

What do you think?

The Pharisees thought that it was a win-win situation:

A) Jesus condones the stoning - The Pharisees can then “see to it” that Rome is notified of this stoning under Jesus’ authorization. The Romans will then deal with this “upstart” who takes the Law into his own hands.

B) Jesus condemns the stoning - The Pharisees feel that the Jews would lose faith in Jesus since he doesn’t uphold the Mosaic Law.

Either way - problem solved. They just forgot about the ingenuity of the God-Man!

 

[lak611]

So I was right!!!



It was not in the ancient manuscripts!!!

But, The church has spoken, and I am loyal to the Church!

Thank you Not Worthy!

You have been very helpful and went out of your way to get that for me.

Yippe!

From the NAB footnotes:

The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts; here, or after Jn 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage. The style and motifs are similar to those of Luke, and it fits better with the general situation at the end of Lk 21, but it was probably inserted here because of the allusion to Jer 17, 13 (cf the note on Jn 8, 6) and the statement, “I do not judge anyone,” in Jn 8, 15. The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture.