Paul cant remember what happened

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hellisreal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hellisreal said:
Are you saying they forced this woman to LIE about being caught in the act?

That does not even make sense! What if Jesus would have said YES? She had no assuraces he would not!

That is most ridicuolosss.
Click to expand...
I do not understand your question. The story is presented as is, how could anyone know why the man was not present…we just know that he wasn’t. There could be any number of reasons why the man wasn’t there but we would just be speculating. Why do you place such importance on the man not being there? Is it not possible that he ran away before they could catch him? Could it be that some of the pharisees had a grudge against the women and were not interested in the man? I don’t know and neither does anyone else…why is it important?
 
NotWorthy said:
I don’t think the woman had a say in the matter. Where does she speak other than when Jesus says, “Is there no one here to stone you”? (Paraphrase).
Click to expand...
Are you accusing the Pharasiee of being willing to have one of their people stoned (or risk it) just to “get Jesus”

Please. There is no reason to believe they would have risked that woman’s life. They were horrible at times, but not killers for crying out loud!

Valke! Help
 
DallasCatholic said:
I do not understand your question. The story is presented as is, how could anyone know why the man was not present…we just know that he wasn’t. There could be any number of reasons why the man wasn’t there but we would just be speculating. Why do you place such importance on the man not being there? Is it not possible that he ran away before they could catch him? Could it be that some of the pharisees had a grudge against the women and were not interested in the man? I don’t know and neither does anyone else…why is it important?
Click to expand...
It is very important! Put yourself in that time period for a minute now!

That man would have been dragged in WITH her, and stoned WITH her to make a PUBLIC example of BOTH of them.

Valke! Help.

They would not just be happy having one of the sinners. That was a HUGE crime. They would not say, lets let the guy go. He seems nice, and maybe this woman provoked him.

Nope.
 
DallasCatholic said:
I do not understand your question. The story is presented as is, how could anyone know why the man was not present…we just know that he wasn’t. There could be any number of reasons why the man wasn’t there but we would just be speculating. Why do you place such importance on the man not being there? Is it not possible that he ran away before they could catch him? Could it be that some of the pharisees had a grudge against the women and were not interested in the man? I don’t know and neither does anyone else…why is it important?
Click to expand...
And what does this have to do with Acts 9:19-26 and Galatians 1:17-18?

Question is for OP, not you DallasCatholic.
 
Hellisreal said:
It is very important! Put yourself in that time period for a minute now!

That man would have been dragged in WITH her, and stoned WITH her to make a PUBLIC example of BOTH of them.

Valke! Help.

They would not just be happy having one of the sinners. That was a HUGE crime. They would not say, lets let the guy go. He seems nice, and maybe this woman provoked him.

Nope.
Click to expand...
And what does this have to do with Acts 9:19-26 and Galatians 1:17-18?
 
Epistemes said:
Well, then if you’re not looking for such answers, maybe it’s best to stop asking…
Click to expand...
Asking is seeking to use reason and logic. Not simply accept others speculations on it, when in most instances they are not even in agreement anyway. The adulterous woman story makes NO sense at all, but it is a nice little story.
 
lak611 said:
And what does this have to do with Acts 9:19-26 and Galatians 1:17-18?
Click to expand...
It came up because someone mentioned that the commentaries were rational expalinations.

I see no such thing really so far.
 
Hellisreal said:
Are you accusing the Pharasiee of being willing to have one of their people stoned (or risk it) just to “get Jesus”
Click to expand...
Who said the woman was “one of their own”.
Please. There is no reason to believe they would have risked that woman’s life. They were horrible at times, but not killers for crying out loud!
Click to expand...
Valke! Help
Click to expand...
If the woman was of ill-repute, I don’t think they would care. Besides, I think the Pharisees, knowing Jesus, felt that Jesus would tell them not to stone her. This would have caused Jesus to lose face since he wasn’t willing to abide by the Law of Moses.

On the other hand, if you think they wouldn’t risk her dying, just read John chapter 11 again.
“You know nothing, nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish.”
Click to expand...
If they felt that killing Jesus would rid them of their problems, they wouldn’t have any qualms about killing a woman to rid themselves of this “Jesus problem”.
 
Hellisreal said:
It is very important! Put yourself in that time period for a minute now!

That man would have been dragged in WITH her, and stoned WITH her to make a PUBLIC example of BOTH of them.

Valke! Help.

They would not just be happy having one of the sinners. That was a HUGE crime. They would not say, lets let the guy go. He seems nice, and maybe this woman provoked him.

Nope.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that human nature has changed that much. Can you please post some type of documentation for your assertion that “The would not just be happy having one of the sinners. That was a HUGE crime.”? If it was such a HUGE crime then why were King David and Bathsehba not stoned? Put yourself in that time period for a minute now! The pharisees were focused on discrediting Jesus in anyway they could. They were unable to trip him up using words or scriptures. They were desparate to find something, anything to discredit him. What did they care if the man got away. BTW, how do you know they “let” him go? Maybe he beat the **** out of them and ran away…again I fail to see the importance.
 
The Pharisees saw only two outcomes:

Either Jesus goes, or they do.

As we saw in Jesus’ Trial, the Pharisees were not above bringing up false witnesses in order to let an innocent man be crucified.
 
Hellisreal said:
It came up because someone mentioned that the commentaries were rational expalinations.

I see no such thing really so far.
Click to expand...
Now if you are talking about the NAB’s commentaries, then I say “AMEN”!!!

But the Navarre and Ignatius (2nd edition) and a few others are very good and enlightening.
 
DallasCatholic said:
I do not believe that human nature has changed that much. Can you please post some type of documentation for your assertion that “The would not just be happy having one of the sinners. That was a HUGE crime.”? If it was such a HUGE crime then why were King David and Bathsehba not stoned? Put yourself in that time period for a minute now! The pharisees were focused on discrediting Jesus in anyway they could. They were unable to trip him up using words or scriptures. They were desparate to find something, anything to discredit him. What did they care if the man got away. BTW, how do you know they “let” him go? Maybe he beat the **** out of them and ran away…again I fail to see the importance.
Click to expand...
Stoning a King? David? Yes, that is very likely. I am sure he was very worried about it. And I can imagine Batsehba was fairly safe too.

What did they care if the man got away? Well, why did they bother with stoning at all if nothing mattered to them? They seemed to do an awful lot of it in the OT. Men and women alike.

This is the first I ever heard of the Pharisees being implicated as resorting to murder of (potentially) one of their own to “get Jesus”.

Where does this theory come from?
 
NotWorthy said:
Now if you are talking about the NAB’s commentaries, then I say “AMEN”!!!

But the Navarre and Ignatius (2nd edition) and a few others are very good and enlightening.
Click to expand...
I dont like the NAB either!!!😉 😃
 
Hellisreal said:
Stoning a King? David? Yes, that is very likely. I am sure he was very worried about it. And I can imagine Batsehba was fairly safe too.

What did they care if the man got away? Well, why did they bother with stoning at all if nothing mattered to them? They seemed to do an awful lot of it in the OT. Men and women alike.

This is the first I ever heard of the Pharisees being implicated as resorting to murder of (potentially) one of their own to “get Jesus”.

Where does this theory come from?
Click to expand...
John 8:6
They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him.
Click to expand...
 
Totally clears it up for me now. I see that the Pharasie did not care if the man got away, who cares what happened to him, and the whole thing either really happened and the man got away or was let go or they just grabbed an innocent woman and either way who cares they were bent to get Jesus.

Okay. I can live with that.

The problem is, in Lev. 20:10 they were both to be stoned. The writers knew this, and did not mention anything about the man, if he ran off or what.

Also, is this story found in the earliest dated manuscripts? I dont know.
 
lak611 said:
Are you claiming that John 7:53-8:11 does not belong in the Bible?
Click to expand...
NO. It belongs there because Jerome said so and I agree with Jerome!😉

I just wonder if it came from a much later dated manuscript rather than the earlier ones. Obviously, some judgements had to be made. I am sure Jerome knew a lot more about all this than any of us do.
 
Hellisreal said:
Totally clears it up for me now. I see that the Pharasie did not care if the man got away, who cares what happened to him, and the whole thing either really happened and the man got away or was let go or they just grabbed an innocent woman and either way who cares they were bent to get Jesus.

Okay. I can live with that.

The problem is, in Lev. 20:10 they were both to be stoned. The writers knew this, and did not mention anything about the man, if he ran off or what.

Also, is this story found in the earliest dated manuscripts? I dont know.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel that they HAVE to mention the man at all in order for the story to be accurate? How do you know that they didn’t stone the man first? BTW, the NAB translation of Leviticus 20:10 just says that they should be put to death.
 
Hellisreal said:
Totally clears it up for me now. I see that the Pharasie did not care if the man got away, who cares what happened to him, and the whole thing either really happened and the man got away or was let go or they just grabbed an innocent woman and either way who cares they were bent to get Jesus.

Okay. I can live with that.

The problem is, in Lev. 20:10 they were both to be stoned. The writers knew this, and did not mention anything about the man, if he ran off or what.

Also, is this story found in the earliest dated manuscripts? I dont know.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top