What Did Jesus Write in the Sand?

[Elizabeth502]

It’s difficult to respect your arguments, Ben, when you refuse to engage posters who have asked you to apply the same “logic” to Judaism, and you choose not to.

Christianity is not more faith-based or less logical than Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sufism, Buddhism, not to mention religions of indigenous peoples.

You don’t know any more than anyone not in the gospel scene in question, what he actually did write in the sand. You’re making a guess based on what you consider logical. There are equally logical explanations that have been offered, some on this thread.

In addition, however, biblical figures of all kinds, including in Hebrew scripture, often acted “illogically” by conventional worldly standards.

 

[Elizabeth502]

---

Hi Elizabeth, we are discussing Scriptures, which is supposed to be a dogma of faith for you Christians and for us. So, it will be a waste of time to try to refute extra-Biblical Literature, yours or mine. As I do my best to leave off Catholic extra-Biblical literature, I think you can leave off anything that’s not
Biblical Judaism. Let’s study the Truth from the point of view of the Bible.

Ben:

What I am telling you is that you can’t separate Scripture out that way, neutrally. As part of, and originating from, oral tradition, scripture is also informed by faith, and ultimately recorded by people of faith. The Hebrew scriptures are not some clinical collection of documents subject to merely “logical” analysis, and you know it. There is an inherent logic to the system of hermeneutics, but exegetes disagree all the time, in intellectually valid ways.

 

[Ben_Masada]

What I am telling you is that you can’t separate Scripture out that way, neutrally. As part of, and originating from, oral tradition, scripture is also informed by faith, and ultimately recorded by people of faith. The Hebrew scriptures are not some clinical collection of documents subject to merely “logical” analysis, and you know it. There is an inherent logic to the system of hermeneutics, but exegetes disagree all the time, in intellectually valid ways.

---

I don’t think we need faith to understand the Scriptures. Where faith begins, knowledge ends, and for lack of
knowledge, people perish. That’s in Hosea 4:6. What we need is to adhere to a method of research.

Ben

 

[Benadam]

---

I don’t think we need faith to understand the Scriptures. Where faith begins, knowledge ends, and for lack of
knowledge, people perish. That’s in Hosea 4:6. What we need is to adhere to a method of research.

Ben

revelation from above would inherently be something that human intellect would not be able to apprehend without ambiguity otherwise. That is what marks it as divinely revealed. That it is held in faith untill reason confirms it. Truth does not violate truth.

Human reason stacks what is known like bricks in an attempt to see ever higher into the heavens. Revelation from above circumvents that truth stacking process by allowing a vision of the heavens to be seen that truth stacking couldn’t see. In order for reason to do it’s thing faith in the vision from above must be believed or it has no way to stack up truth to the place where the vision satisfies reason.

If the revelation is considered impossible the faculty of reason is already closed to it and unable to stack up what is known in a way that makes it possible and eventually unreasonable any other way.

 

[NotWorthy]

---

It’s very simple my friend. All you have to do is to use logic and read between the lines. That’s what I mean by logic.

…
To conclude, Jesus asked the woman where were her accusers. They could not condemn that woman because they were also under condemnation for being sinners.

Now, what does Jesus tell that woman? “Neither do I condemn you.” That’s what he was writing on the sand: No one can condemn you, because we all are sinners. And that includes Jesus himself. Now, if you can separate emotions which are caused by faith, you will see how logic makes sense.

Ben:

Except for the logic that nowhere in the Torah does it say that sinless people have to stone the sinners. I don’t see anywhere in the Old Testament where this is stated. Surely, these good Jews were familiar enough with the Torah to know that.

Your only logic falls flat, Ben.

Instead, all these guys wanted was to trap this upstart rabbi from Nazareth (“Can anything good come from Nazareth”) and condemn him before either a) the Romans or b) the Jews. Either way was a “Win-Win”.

 

[jcrichton]

---

It’s very simple my friend. All you have to do is to use logic and read between the lines. That’s what I mean by logic.

Although I do not believe that case ever happened, but in the mind
of the gospel writer, I’ll repeat here to you what I have already said.

First of all, why did that group of men bring that woman to be stoned? Because she had been caught in adultery. Therefore, she was a sinner. Then, Jesus started writing on the sand.

Second, why those men could not stone that woman? Because they were also sinners. By now, I am sure you already have an idea of what Jesus was writing on the sand.

When he finished writing, the men had gone. They understood what Jesus had been writing. We haven’t yet. But wait.

To conclude, Jesus asked the woman where were her accusers. They could not condemn that woman because they were also under condemnation for being sinners.

Now, what does Jesus tell that woman? “Neither do I condemn you.” That’s what he was writing on the sand: No one can condemn you, because we all are sinners. And that includes Jesus himself. Now, if you can separate emotions which are caused by faith, you will see how logic makes sense.

Ben:

You must be taken logic lessons from Chinise contortionists… it is the only way that you can create such inflamatory and asinine thoughts and offer them to the world as enlightenment!

May the Holy Spirit spare you from knowing how dark your spirit is!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

---

Biblical Judaism. Let’s study the Truth from the point of view of the Bible.

Ben:

The problem with your premise is that you dictate what is “truth” for both the Jews and the Catholics/Christians…

Here’s simple logic: you’ve stocked the deck then you’re inviting others to join your friendly game.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

---

I don’t think we need faith to understand the Scriptures. Where faith begins, knowledge ends, and for lack of
knowledge, people perish. That’s in Hosea 4:6. What we need is to adhere to a method of research.

Ben

Yet, when your method of research is flawed the end result is also flawed!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

revelation from above would inherently be something that human intellect would not be able to apprehend without ambiguity otherwise. That is what marks it as divinely revealed. That it is held in faith untill reason confirms it. Truth does not violate truth.

Human reason stacks what is known like bricks in an attempt to see ever higher into the heavens. Revelation from above circumvents that truth stacking process by allowing a vision of the heavens to be seen that truth stacking couldn’t see. In order for reason to do it’s thing faith in the vision from above must be believed or it has no way to stack up truth to the place where the vision satisfies reason.

If the revelation is considered impossible the faculty of reason is already closed to it and unable to stack up what is known in a way that makes it possible and eventually unreasonable any other way.

…sounds very profound…

…you’ve just reasoned that God cannot reveal the Truth till human intellect determines that it is truth! Bravo!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Benadam]

…sounds very profound…

…you’ve just reasoned that God cannot reveal the Truth till human intellect determines that it is truth! Bravo!

Maran atha!

Angel

I did? I meant that revelation from above would require faith , if it didn’t it wouldn’t be from too far above would it?

 

[jcrichton]

I did? I meant that revelation from above would require faith , if it didn’t it wouldn’t be from too far above would it?

…sorry, but I did not get it from your previous post…

I concur with you whole heartedly; without Faith all revelation is mute; here’s how Jesus put it:

16 I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you for ever, 17 the Spirit of truth whom the world can never accept since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him, because he is with you, he is in you. 18 I shall not leave you orphans; I shall come to you. 19 In a short time the world will no longer see me; but you will see that I live and you also will live.
20 On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you. 21 Whoever holds to my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me; and whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I shall love him and reveal myself to him.’ 22 Judas – not Judas Iscariot – said to him, ‘Lord, what has happened, that you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?’ 23 Jesus replied: Anyone who loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make a home in him. 24 Anyone who does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not my own: it is the word of the Father who sent me. (St. John 14:16-24)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[kimmielittle]

Yet, when your method of research is flawed the end result is also flawed!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Ben_Masada]

revelation from above would inherently be something that human intellect would not be able to apprehend without ambiguity otherwise. That is what marks it as divinely revealed. That it is held in faith untill reason confirms it. Truth does not violate truth.

Human reason stacks what is known like bricks in an attempt to see ever higher into the heavens. Revelation from above circumvents that truth stacking process by allowing a vision of the heavens to be seen that truth stacking couldn’t see. In order for reason to do it’s thing faith in the vision from above must be believed or it has no way to stack up truth to the place where the vision satisfies reason.

If the revelation is considered impossible the faculty of reason is already closed to it and unable to stack up what is known in a way that makes it possible and eventually unreasonable any other way.

---

All revelations, from above or below, no matter,
must be tested in the light of Isaiah 8:20. “To the Law and the Testimony; if they don’t speak according to this word, it’s because there is no light in them.” By the Law we understand to be the Torah; by the Testimony we understand the Prophets in particular or the rest of the Tanach in general. In a word, Judaism,
the faith of Jesus.

Ben:

 

[Benadam]

---

All revelations, from above or below, no matter,
must be tested in the light of Isaiah 8:20. “To the Law and the Testimony; if they don’t speak according to this word, it’s because there is no light in them.” By the Law we understand to be the Torah; by the Testimony we understand the Prophets in particular or the rest of the Tanach in general. In a word, Judaism,
the faith of Jesus.

Ben:

two primary structures of revelation from above. Agreed!

 

[jcrichton]

---

All revelations, from above or below, no matter,
must be tested in the light of Isaiah 8:20. “To the Law and the Testimony; if they don’t speak according to this word, it’s because there is no light in them.” By the Law we understand to be the Torah; by the Testimony we understand the Prophets in particular or the rest of the Tanach in general. In a word, Judaism,
the faith of Jesus.

Ben:

Actually, that is early revelation… it is directed to the House of Israel and it excludes those to whom the Law had not been given:

1 What I am saying is this: an heir, during the time while he is still under age, is no different from a slave, even though he is the owner of all the property; 2 he is under the control of guardians and administrators until the time fixed by his father. 3 So too with us, as long as we were still under age, we were enslaved to the elemental principles of this world; 4 but when the completion of the time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born a subject of the Law, 5 to redeem the subjects of the Law, so that we could receive adoption as sons. 6 As you are sons, God has sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son crying, ‘Abba, Father’; 7 and so you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir, by God’s own act. (Galatians 4:1-7)

1 Now when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with any brilliance of oratory or wise argument to announce to you the mystery of God. 2 I was resolved that the only knowledge I would have while I was with you was knowledge of Jesus, and of him as the crucified Christ. 3 I came among you in weakness, in fear and great trembling 4 and what I spoke and proclaimed was not meant to convince by philosophical argument, but to demonstrate the convincing power of the Spirit, 5 so that your faith should depend not on human wisdom but on the power of God. 6 But still, to those who have reached maturity, we do talk of a wisdom, not, it is true, a philosophy of this age or of the rulers of this age, who will not last long now. 7 It is of the mysterious wisdom of God that we talk, the wisdom that was hidden, which God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began. 8 None of the rulers of the age recognised it; for if they had recognised it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but it is as scripture says: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, what the mind of man cannot visualise; all that God has prepared for those who love him; 10 to us, though, God has given revelation through the Spirit, for the Spirit explores the depths of everything, even the depths of God. 11 After all, is there anyone who knows the qualities of anyone except his own spirit, within him; and in the same way, nobody knows the qualities of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now, the Spirit we have received is not the spirit of the world but God’s own Spirit, so that we may understand the lavish gifts God has given us. 13 And these are what we speak of, not in the terms learnt from human philosophy, but in terms learnt from the Spirit, fitting spiritual language to spiritual things. 14 The natural person has no room for the gifts of God’s Spirit; to him they are folly; he cannot recognise them, because their value can be assessed only in the Spirit. 15 The spiritual person, on the other hand, can assess the value of everything, and that person’s value cannot be assessed by anybody else. 16 For: who has ever known the mind of the Lord? Who has ever been his adviser? But we are those who have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:1-16)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Ben_Masada]

Actually, that is early revelation… it is directed to the House of Israel and it excludes those to whom the Law had not been given:

1 What I am saying is this: an heir, during the time while he is still under age, is no different from a slave, even though he is the owner of all the property; 2 he is under the control of guardians and administrators until the time fixed by his father. 3 So too with us, as long as we were still under age, we were enslaved to the elemental principles of this world; 4 but when the completion of the time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born a subject of the Law, 5 to redeem the subjects of the Law, so that we could receive adoption as sons. 6 As you are sons, God has sent into our hearts the Spirit of his Son crying, ‘Abba, Father’; 7 and so you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir, by God’s own act. (Galatians 4:1-7)

1 Now when I came to you, brothers, I did not come with any brilliance of oratory or wise argument to announce to you the mystery of God. 2 I was resolved that the only knowledge I would have while I was with you was knowledge of Jesus, and of him as the crucified Christ. 3 I came among you in weakness, in fear and great trembling 4 and what I spoke and proclaimed was not meant to convince by philosophical argument, but to demonstrate the convincing power of the Spirit, 5 so that your faith should depend not on human wisdom but on the power of God. 6 But still, to those who have reached maturity, we do talk of a wisdom, not, it is true, a philosophy of this age or of the rulers of this age, who will not last long now. 7 It is of the mysterious wisdom of God that we talk, the wisdom that was hidden, which God predestined to be for our glory before the ages began. 8 None of the rulers of the age recognised it; for if they had recognised it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but it is as scripture says: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, what the mind of man cannot visualise; all that God has prepared for those who love him; 10 to us, though, God has given revelation through the Spirit, for the Spirit explores the depths of everything, even the depths of God. 11 After all, is there anyone who knows the qualities of anyone except his own spirit, within him; and in the same way, nobody knows the qualities of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now, the Spirit we have received is not the spirit of the world but God’s own Spirit, so that we may understand the lavish gifts God has given us. 13 And these are what we speak of, not in the terms learnt from human philosophy, but in terms learnt from the Spirit, fitting spiritual language to spiritual things. 14 The natural person has no room for the gifts of God’s Spirit; to him they are folly; he cannot recognise them, because their value can be assessed only in the Spirit. 15 The spiritual person, on the other hand, can assess the value of everything, and that person’s value cannot be assessed by anybody else. 16 For: who has ever known the mind of the Lord? Who has ever been his adviser? But we are those who have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:1-16)

Maran atha!

Angel

Sorry, Angel, but all the above is all Pauline rhetoric from his Christology. If you had not written so much I would give you a more specific reply. Next time tell me what you don’t understand or want me to understand and we are in business. I mean, you don’t have to paste the whole gospel of Paul. I have it already from the NT.

Ben:

 

[jcrichton]

Sorry, Angel, but all the above is all Pauline rhetoric from his Christology. If you had not written so much I would give you a more specific reply. Next time tell me what you don’t understand or want me to understand and we are in business. I mean, you don’t have to paste the whole gospel of Paul. I have it already from the NT.

Ben:

You may have it in the New Testament but you do not accept it as the Word of God, so why are you here?

Searching for the Truth cannot lead you away from Jesus Christ, your Lord and Savior.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Sr_Sally]

This passage starts out “Early in the morning he came to the temple; all the people came to him, and he taught them.” I’ve often wondered about the writing on the ground (it wasn’t in the sand, unless the temple floor was made of sand.)

It seems to me that it’s significant WHERE Jesus is when he is writing on the ground. He’s in the Temple in Jerusalem - the center of worship for the Jews.

The Pharisees try to get him to go along with their legalistic interpretation of the Old Covenant laws. He applies the standards of the New Covenant - Love your neighbor as yourself.

He is inscribing a New Covenant on their hearts, writing it on the foundation of their most sacred place - the Temple.

It’s not so much important WHAT he was writing - his writing on the ground of the Temple is symbolic of what he is doing in having mercy on the woman instead of condemning her as the Pharisees want him to. Through his actions and teachings, he is forming a New Covenant with both the Jews of the Temple and, ultimately, all of humanity. That is what I think the writing on the ground of the Temple is all about.

This was really insightful. Thanks for this thougt!

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Regarding the story of the adulteress who is about to get stoned?

Before Jesus made his famous, “Let he who is without sin cast the first Stone” statement, he wrote in the sand.

I have heard, or read, that Theologians speculate that Jesus was writing in the sand the sins of those with stones in their hands, and those that were trying to trip him up with this question.

I find this plausable. But what else does Jesus’s writing in the sand signify?
Could it be as simple as That THEIR sins were as numerous as grains of sand?..or
Does this point to some ancient custom? or Did one of the Patriarchs write something in the sand?
In the OT God wrote to Moses on Stone, which was the Law, and put in the ark of the old Covenant. In the NT Jesus’s Only writing is in sand and there’s ONLY speculation as to what is written? This HAS to signify Something???
God does everything for a reason.

I think the theologians are right. However I also suspect that a bit of divine sleight of hand was at work. You’ll remember the two disciples walking from Emmaus were kept from recognising Christ even as He talked and walked with them, until Christ had gotten His message across. Pre-recognition would have destroyed their concentration on His message about the Scriptures.

In a similar way I don’t think Christ literally wrote every sin in the sand (He’d hardly have had the time), but each man, one by one (if I remember rightly they left that way, the oldest first) read his particular sins only. When he’d gone, God started on the next bloke.

 

[Shoshana]

I think the theologians are right. However I also suspect that a bit of divine sleight of hand was at work. You’ll remember the two disciples walking from Emmaus were kept from recognising Christ even as He talked and walked with them, until Christ had gotten His message across. Pre-recognition would have destroyed their concentration on His message about the Scriptures.

In a similar way I don’t think Christ literally wrote every sin in the sand (He’d hardly have had the time), but each man, one by one (if I remember rightly they left that way, the oldest first) read his particular sins only. When he’d gone, God started on the next bloke.

But He could have easily wrote down THEIR adulterous acts…and maybe with this very same woman!