Vatican advisor: Pope ‘breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants’ |

[Telstar]

Did he stone adulterers and homosexuals as prescribed in the Torah by Moses ?

The Jews could not carry out any death sentence while under Roman rule. So, your whole point is moot. Not to mention the fact that there was never an instance of any “homosexuals” being brought to Him, at all.

Did he allow the Apostles to break the Sabbath fast, again as prescribed in the Torah ?

They were not accused of breaking a “Sabbath fast”. They were accused of working on the Sabbath (gathering grain), but the Law said nothing about individuals picking grain (or gathering any food) to eat on the Sabbath if they were hungry.

The law Jesus came to fulfil was that of his bringing salvation to the world.

Jesus came to fulfill all of the Laws of the Old Covenant and establish His Church based on His New Covenant.

That was the way they had their trial

Before they were conquered by Rome, the High Priest was the Judge in all those cases.

Would Jesus have treated the woman differently in a formal trial by the Sanhedrin ?

Even if the woman had been brought to the Sanhedrin, they still could not have passed a death sentence on her without the OK from Pilate. So, your point is still moot.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Jews could not carry out any death sentence while under Roman rule. So, your whole point is moot. Not to mention the fact that there was never an instance of any “homosexuals” being brought to Him, at all.

They did for certain cases, adultery and homosexuality were allowed. Women didn’t get to a trial before the Sanhedrin nor before the Roman Procurator.

Also, according to your post, you’ll have to explain St Stephens stoning to death, see Acts 7:54-60

They were not accused of breaking a “Sabbath fast”. They were accused of working on the Sabbath (gathering grain), but the Law said nothing about individuals picking grain (or gathering any food) to eat on the Sabbath if they were hungry.

Technicality, essentially it was required to fast from doing work on the Sabbath.

When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.”3He said to them,“Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering,which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat? Matthew 12:2-4

Even if the woman had been brought to the Sanhedrin, they still could not have passed a death sentence on her without the OK from Pilate. So, your point is still moot.

A woman would not have been brought before the Sanhedrin for committing adultery. Her husband was the judge and prosecutor along with the mob who threw the stones with a Jewish official as witness.

In all, Jesus did not follow all the laws of his religion as prescribed in his time, which is the point of the discussion.

Many of those laws were man made and placed a heavy burden on the backs of the people, while the Pharisees and Scribes ignored them

Jim

 

[Agathon]

Also, according to your post, you’ll have to explain St Stephens stoning to death, see Acts 7:54-60

That was more like a lynching rather than an execution. And there was no Roman governor at the time of Stephen’s stoning; Pilate had been recalled.

 

[Agathon]

A woman would not have been brought before the Sanhedrin for committing adultery. Her husband was the judge and prosecutor along with the mob who threw the stones with a Jewish official as witness.

In all, Jesus did not follow all the laws of his religion as prescribed in his time, which is the point of the discussion.

Sources please.

 

[Telstar]

They did for certain cases, adultery and homosexuality were allowed. Women didn’t get to a trial before the Sanhedrin nor before the Roman Procurator.

A woman would not have been brought before the Sanhedrin for committing adultery. Her husband was the judge and prosecutor along with the mob who threw the stones with a Jewish official as witness.

If the above was true (according to your opinion), then why did you even ask the seemingly nonsensical question, below? Were you just trying to be contradictory? Or, were you hoping no one would notice?

Would Jesus have treated the woman differently in a formal trial by the Sanhedrin ?

Also, according to your post, you’ll have to explain St Stephens stoning to death, see Acts 7:54-60

As @Agathon already answered, that was a simple case of a “lynching”, or plain old “mob rule”. After the Crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews became more and more bold in their defiance of Roman law, especially when it came to their persecution of the early Christians.

Technicality, essentially it was required to fast from doing work on the Sabbath.

In the Bible, the word “fasting” or “fast” is almost always used in reference to abstaining from food. You can call it a technicality all you want, it refers to food. The Pharisees were complaining that the Disciples were working on the Sabbath, when they were just gathering something to eat.

When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.”3He said to them,“Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering,which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat? Matthew 12:2-4

You missed the most significant line in that passage:

"Matthew 12: [4] How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only? [5] Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame?"

This statement had a much more profound and prophetic meaning when it was made by Jesus. He was actually telling the Jews that His Disciples were exempt from the Law, because they were the Priests of the New Covenant who would replace the Levitical Priesthood. So, they were “without blame”.

If Jesus had broken any Law, it would have been a sin. He never sinned. Do you really think He did?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sources please.

Your public library, see the section on Roman History.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If the above was true (according to your opinion), then why did you even ask the seemingly nonsensical question, below? Were you just trying to be contradictory? Or, were you hoping no one would notice?

Why are you being insulting ?

The question was in response to the accusation that the Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus because the woman would’ve had to be brought before a formal trial and found guilty before being executed. It didn’t matter because a woman wouldn’t have required a formal trial according to Jewish law of Jesus time. The Romans could’ve cared less what they did to women.

Also, the woman was about to be stoned as the scribes and the Pharisees who had already judge the woman, to test Jesus. Note they weren’t going to have the Romans execute her.
See John 8:1-11

Also, Deuteronomy states:

you shall bring the man or the woman who has done this evil deed out to your gates and stone the man or the woman to death. Only on the testimony of two or three witnesses shall a person be put to death; no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.7he hands of the witnesses shall be the first raised to put the person to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. Deut 17:5-8

All that was required to judge women and homosexuals were witnesses.

Jim

 

[Agathon]

It didn’t matter because a woman wouldn’t have required a formal trial according to Jewish law of Jesus time. The Romans could’ve cared less what they did to women.

As I stated where are your sources?

 

[Agathon]

Sources please.

Why are you being coy?