What was Jesus writing on the ground when they brought the woman caught in adultery?

[glendab]

Gloria if you’re going to quote me, please don’t change what I wrote and add to what I actually said.

You see Glenda, as I can not say that this is what occurred, neither you can be so sure that this is not actually what occurred. And I know that what I am putting forward is a reminder for all of us to keep the Commandments of God so that we may not be accussed in Judgement Day, and if by giving this meaning to this passage have brought so many people to think about it. Blessed be God!

I have told you before if you have a better imagination than mine bring it forward, but not the same that you tried before because some people opposed it, including me.

And do you really think that I thought about this yesterday, NO. I have being thinking in this for years and there is nothing wrong in imagine it like that. and of course that time of reflection neither will make it true. It is not the Gospel but it is something to meditated about.

And I said from the beginning, in my first post, that this is my imagination.:idea: If you do not like it tell me where do you think it does not square, very simple.

In the love of Christ and thinking about all what He did to save us,:flowers:
Gloria

.

Glenda

P.S. Speaking of the 10 Commandments, is putting words into my mouth via adding text to what I wrote distorting what I said bearing false witness? If yes, don’t do it; if no, please don’t do it anyway. It is wrong to do so.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Gloria if you’re going to quote me, please don’t change what I wrote and add to what I actually said.
Glenda

P.S. Speaking of the 10 Commandments, is putting words into my mouth via adding text to what I wrote distorting what I said bearing false witness? If yes, don’t do it; if no, please don’t do it anyway. It is wrong to do so.

See Glenda** I HAVE NOT DISTORT YOUR QUOTE** what I added in CAPITAL RED LETTERS it is obviously what I am objecting to your quote. So before accusing me go and check what you said and do not be saying that I added anything, this is false witness, like you said, and you do not have nothing to prove it. :dts:

THIS IS YOUR QUOTE WITHOUT THE CAPITAL RED LETTERS THAT I WROTE:

Gloria,

You seem to have convinced yourself that you know what He wrote: the 10 Commandments. Your thoughts are valid and have meaning, they aren’t necessarily what actually occurred. No one knows what Jesus was writing upon the ground that day. All that is known is that He wrote something. It is dangerous to speculate about things that cannot be known with certainty. Telling others that you KNOW what He wrote isn’t good for them. Be careful. A reflection is that, just a reflection. It isn’t Gospel.

Glenda

And my objection to this quote of yours is here: post #100 where precisely I asked you to tell me to quote the post where I said that “I know what He wrote”, but you can not because I never said it. And then you have to go around the bushes to turn it against me in another way to distract attention, what a woman!!

Gloria

PD I know what is your problem You go reading very quickly and miss the meaning of things. It happen to me with you before and I decided not to answer any more that post of yours.
.

 

[Boniventure]

Not So!

Glenda

RESPONSE:

I’m afraid the evidence shows that it is so. Here is only one of the references from the Anchor Bible Series. I can present more if you like. Even Wikipedia address the late addition of the Woman Taken In Adultery to the Gospel of John.

Fr. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), in the **Anchor Bible series **(Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pages 335-6.

Problems of Authorship and of Canonicity
These problems must be treated as a series of distinct questions. The first question is whether the story of the adulteress was part of the original Gospel according to John or whether it was inserted at a later period. The answer to this question is clearly that it was a later insertion. This passage is not found in any of the important early Greek textual witnesses of Eastern provenance (e.g., in neither Bodmer papyrus); nor is it found in the Old Syriac or the Coptic. There are no comments on this passage by the Greek writers on John of the first Christian millenium, and it is only from about AD 900 that it begins to appear in the standard Greek text. The evidence for the passage as Scripture in the early centuries is confined to the Western Church. It appears in some Old Latin texts of the Gospels. Ambrose and Augustine wanted it read as part of the Gospel, and Jerome included it in the Vulgate. It appears in the fifth-century Greco-Latin Codex Bezae.

 

[glendab]

Hello Boniventure.

RESPONSE:

I’m afraid the evidence shows that it is so. Here is only one of the references from the Anchor Bible Series. I can present more if you like. Even Wikipedia address the late addition of the Woman Taken In Adultery to the Gospel of John.

Fr. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), in the **Anchor Bible series **(Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pages 335-6.

Problems of Authorship and of Canonicity
These problems must be treated as a series of distinct questions. The first question is whether the story of the adulteress was part of the original Gospel according to John or whether it was inserted at a later period. The answer to this question is clearly that it was a later insertion. This passage is not found in any of the important early Greek textual witnesses of Eastern provenance (e.g., in neither Bodmer papyrus); nor is it found in the Old Syriac or the Coptic. There are no comments on this passage by the Greek writers on John of the first Christian millenium, and it is only from about AD 900 that it begins to appear in the standard Greek text. The evidence for the passage as Scripture in the early centuries is confined to the Western Church. It appears in some Old Latin texts of the Gospels. Ambrose and Augustine wanted it read as part of the Gospel, and Jerome included it in the Vulgate. It appears in the fifth-century Greco-Latin Codex Bezae.

You have convinced yourself that there exists sufficient “evidence” proving the Canon of Scripture isn’t up to your standards. That is okay for you. But not for me. It is wonderful when folks with degrees in theology can debate things. That is nice - it keeps them out of my kitchen and out of the way. My children have masters degrees in theology! Truly. They stayed out of the kitchen! But it doesn’t change me or what I believe or my Bible bit. The Canon of Scriptures was defined and codified for me and that is all I need.

You can believe anything you want, but please don’t say the Church is in error about the Bible. We wrote it.

Glenda

P.S. I do think some study so long and so hard so they don’t ever have to pick grapes for a living or wash other people’s dishes.

 

[John_Q_Sinner]

Sorry Sinner but in this thread this is what I am proposing and what I am promoting!!!

Up to now no one has come with a better imagination because the ones that said that Jesus was writing the sins of each one, does not make sense, because some one said He will be disclosing the sins of people in public!!! Also too much writing on the earth!!

What, you would not like me to be right???

No, I have no problem if you are right; however, I do have a problem with you promoting your theory as if it is correct simply because you believe others do not have a better imagination than yourself.

How do you know that He is not enlightening me to say these things?? Can you be sure that He is not???

.

I don’t. To be honest the thought never crossed my mind that you were. So are you claiming you’re receiving private revelations from Christ?

And if you do not like my proposal, well tell me where does not square, if not, seems to me that you are just arguing for the sake of not giving a possibility to have it right. Just because in 2000 years no one thought in this answer???:tsktsk:

I never said I do not like your proposal, but rather I do not like your attitude and how you are treating other peoples proposals.

Well, I tell you that we have the Apocalypse for 2000 years and there is not an explanation about it, does that makes wrong any one who comes with good ideas to give it meaning??

Not at all especially now that we have you! I can’t wait to read your infallible proposal on the Apocalypse.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

No, I have no problem if you are right; however, I do have a problem with you promoting your theory as if it is correct simply because you believe others do not have a better imagination than yourself. .

I don’t. To be honest the thought never crossed my mind that you were. So are you claiming you’re receiving private revelations from Christ?

GOD FORBID!! By no means I am claiming private revelation from Christ! But that does not take away that we all who claim to be Christians have the Holy Spirit enlightening us in things. In fact we are told in certain circumstances no to worry about what to say because the Holy Spirit will tell us what to say in that moment.

I never said I do not like your proposal, but rather I do not like your attitude and how you are treating other peoples proposals.

Well this is something that I would not like to happen. Have I been treating bad others because their imaginations were not very accurate? If yes… give me an example so that I can correct myself because I would not like to be treating people bad and I should be put down if I am doing so… but after saying this, that does not mean that if someone is saying something which can not be according to what we are saying, then I will argue and that I do not consider to treat bad someone.

Not at all especially now that we have you! I can’t wait to read your infallible proposal on the Apocalypse.

You know, you sound like Gorgias!!!

Pray for us so that my husband and I we may be able to do it soon.

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Well, this is a pretty long thread, and I see some answers that are pretty good and sort of hit on this.

As it was probably mentioned by someone else (I’m no entirely sure), it was not what Jesus wrote that was important, it was the fact that Jesus wrote with his finger.

The purpose of Him writing in the dirt with His finger was to show to them that He was the Lawgiver (the Law was written by the finger of God). The Law was written on stone because the hard-hearted men the Law was given to. Jesus wrote in the dirt to signify that he was seeking fruit.

Those who were charged with teaching and upholding the Law, were also transgressors of the Law, and so the message was that they too should be held accountable and stand with her to also be punished. This is why they all left except for Jesus, who was (and perhaps they knew this-- the woman certainly did) the only one there without sin. so the woman answered, “No man, Lord” to signify that she was left standing in the presence of justice and expected to be punished by Him who was without sin. But, of course, the Lord instead gave her clemency.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Well, this is a pretty long thread, and I see some answers that are pretty good and sort of hit on this.

As it was probably mentioned by someone else (I’m no entirely sure), it was not what Jesus wrote that was important, it was the fact that Jesus wrote with his finger.

The purpose of Him writing in the dirt with His finger was to show to them that He was the Lawgiver (the Law was written by the finger of God). The Law was written on stone because the hard-hearted men the Law was given to. Jesus wrote in the dirt to signify that he was seeking fruit.

Those who were charged with teaching and upholding the Law, were also transgressors of the Law, and so the message was that they too should be held accountable and stand with her to also be punished. This is why they all left except for Jesus, who was (and perhaps they knew this-- the woman certainly did) the only one there without sin. so the woman answered, “No man, Lord” to signify that she was left standing in the presence of justice and expected to be punished by Him who was without sin. But, of course, the Lord instead gave her clemency.

Dear Jonathon, I like your idea :idea: of being writing with the finger reminding that the Law was written by the finger of God (even tough they did not believe that Jesus was even a prophet -until today-, but we do believe he is the Son of God, therefore see the meaning now of writing with His finger so emphatically). In this thread I did not mention the use of the finger in this way; I just mention the writing of the Commandments on the earth.

As for writing on the ‘dirt’ (I will say better on the earth which is the Greek word use in the text) signifying that he was seeking fruit, that is nice.** It adds certainly something new to all what is being said before.** And I will add that in this way Jesus is stating the importance of keeping the Commandments even for us today!

SO MANY THANKS:

**TWO NEW THINGS TO ADD TO THIS THREAD;

1 THE FINGER OF GOD WRITING THE LAW AGAIN

2 THIS TIME ON EARTH BECAUSE HE IS SEEKING FRUIT FROM ALL OF US **

I hope I did not change anything of what you wanted to say.

In the love of God,
Gloria

.

 

[tm30]

Well, this is a pretty long thread, and I see some answers that are pretty good and sort of hit on this.

As it was probably mentioned by someone else (I’m no entirely sure), it was not what Jesus wrote that was important, it was the fact that Jesus wrote with his finger.

The purpose of Him writing in the dirt with His finger was to show to them that He was the Lawgiver (the Law was written by the finger of God). The Law was written on stone because the hard-hearted men the Law was given to. Jesus wrote in the dirt to signify that he was seeking fruit.

Those who were charged with teaching and upholding the Law, were also transgressors of the Law, and so the message was that they too should be held accountable and stand with her to also be punished. This is why they all left except for Jesus, who was (and perhaps they knew this-- the woman certainly did) the only one there without sin. so the woman answered, “No man, Lord” to signify that she was left standing in the presence of justice and expected to be punished by Him who was without sin. But, of course, the Lord instead gave her clemency.

My take: Jesus was sending a not-so-subtle message not that He was the author of the Law, but that He was the author of their very lives – thus, “writing” in the dust from which they came.

Another bit: There is a mis-conception that Jesus forgave her sin, you know, just because He felt like it. But a woman was never taken out for stoning unless she had first confessed her infraction before the temple priests. So Jesus was also giving us the form of the Sacrament of penance – confession-and-remission of sins instead of confession-and-punishment. The temple priests were not capable of giving that remission, but Jesus was. He was demonstrating His dominion as God, not just making a point about hypocrisy.

 

[rebeccanew]

Perhaps each man saw something different-each man seeing his own sins not anyone else’s.

 

[vz71]

I don’t believe this passage specifies that Jesus was actually in the temple.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

My take: Jesus was sending a not-so-subtle message not that He was the author of the Law, but that He was the author of their very lives – thus, “writing” in the dust from which they came.

I do not see this here, sorry Tm. The fact is that they started to go one by one starting by the oldest, and in which way Jesus could be telling them that he was the author of their lives? To write the Law (the 10 Commandments) on the earth I do not believe is a “subtle message” as you claim above, but was the way by which each one was remind of their sins and left.

Another bit: There is a mis-conception that Jesus forgave her sin, you know, just because He felt like it. But a woman was never taken out for stoning unless she had first confessed her infraction before the temple priests.

This woman did not have to confess anything because, if you read the quote properly, you will see that “3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery”

So Jesus was also giving us the form of the Sacrament of penance – confession-and-remission of sins instead of confession-and-punishment. The temple priests were not capable of giving that remission, but Jesus was. He was demonstrating His dominion as God, not just making a point about hypocrisy.

Since your previous quote do not follow and she did not confess anything, therefore we go back to say that she was forgiven something that deserved the death penalty, but that in truth no one can take into his hands to impart this penalty because everyone is guilty of sin in one way or another. That is how Jesus did away with the death penalty in the OT, now God is the only one in charge to give the death penalty at the end times, when the adulterous, liars, sexually immoral, etc. will be thrown into the lake of fire, which is the second death, the eternal death of the soul. Rev 21:8

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

I don’t believe this passage specifies that Jesus was actually in the temple.

**What Vz? You do not believe in the Bible? **:bigyikes:

“…but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery(…)” Jn 8: 1-3

Hope you change your mind

In the love of the truth
Gloria

.

 

[trevorhall]

“Don’t. Sign. Romo.”

 

[Gloria_de_G]

“Don’t. Sign. Romo.”

WHAT DO YOU MEAN ROMO

Gloria

.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Perhaps each man saw something different-each man seeing his own sins not anyone else’s.

Dear Rebecca, yes, you are right, this is exactly what we have been saying: that Jesus wrote the Ten Commandments on the earth and on reading them, each got reminded of their own sin :doh2: and left. (I believe by Jesus presence there, that their souls were moved in that direction).

Many thanks for participating,
Gloria

.

 

[vz71]

**What Vz? You do not believe in the Bible? **:bigyikes:

What’s not to believe?
I simply see something different in the verse.

“…but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery(…)” Jn 8: 1-3

Hope you change your mind

In the love of the truth
Gloria

.

I went to Mass last week.
While we were there, my kids jumped and trampled on the roses.
They were duly punished.
But you can read what I said and understand readily that the roses were not actually in the sanctuary, right?
I see the verse in a similar manner.
Yes, Jesus went to Temple. But the circumstances we read about do not necessarily have to have occurred in the Temple for every word to be true. In fact we have a reason to believe at least some of what we read about occurred outside the temple. That he wrote on the ground would be a good indication that he was not in the temple at the time.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

What’s not to believe?
I simply see something different in the verse.

This is exactly what I ment when I said that you do not believe in what is written in the Bible. I am going to explain you do not worry… and I am going to show you how wrong you are.

(…) Yes, Jesus went to Temple. But the circumstances we read about do not necessarily have to have occurred in the Temple for every word to be true.

You say that it is not necessarily to have occurred in the Temple. Let us see what happen after the Scribes and the Pharisees left one by one, while Jesus was writing on the earth with His finger the Law (the Ten Commandments),* and then forgave the adulterous woman.

We are told:

“12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world; he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” And a bit more ahead during the same event “20 These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.”

**Then Jesus started to speak again **:" 21 Again he said to them, “I go away, and you will seek me and die in your sin; where I am going, you cannot come.” " **All these is in the same day after the event with the adulterous woman. So let us read a bit more ahead and we have when he was arguing with the Jews about being sons of Abraham: **

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” 57 The Jews then said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”[d] 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they took up stones to throw at him**; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.
**

In fact we have a reason to believe at least some of what we read about occurred outside the temple. That he wrote on the ground would be a good indication that he was not in the temple at the time.

(about “a good indication”… see post # 45)

So you see you are just trying to understand the Bible in your own inaccurate way, not even reading it properly before you set out your opinions here.
Mind you, it could happen also to me, that is why I am here to learn to be more accurate when I speak.

In the love of the Bible and our Lord’s teachings,
Gloria
*This is what this thread is about…
.

 

[aragonjohn1]

maybe, our lord wrote something simple that made the elder ones leave first one by one?

God bless

 

[Gloria_de_G]

maybe, our lord wrote something simple that made the elder ones leave first one by one?

God bless

Yes, you are right, the commandments in Hebrew are very simple: two short words each, NO and the Commandment. But if you want to know my imagination of why they went off one by one starting by the elders, please read my post #1, I explained it there.

In the love of Christ,
Gloria

.