Why could the jews

[Voco_proTatiano]

Hi!

…I’ve hightlighted part of your post… is the highlighted text in reference to the Scriptural passage found in St John 8:1-11?

If it is, what text demonstrate that this is, explicitly, a remarried woman and that the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are challenging Christ’s Teachings and not attempting to trap Christ if He contradicts tha Law of Moses?

Maran atha!

Angel

Exactly so, and that is why the tale was so emmended, to show Our Lord in a better light.
The text that indicates that this is a re-married divorcee is that she was caught in ‘flagrante delicto’, in the very act, yet the co-adulterer is not in the same dock.
Under Mosaic law, he clearly should be. Yet he is not. He is at least needed as a ‘corpus delicti’.
So under Judaic law, there is no case.
Thus the case must be a challenge to Our Lord’s teaching that re-marriage after divorce is adulterous.
You need to read between the lines, for the original tale has been edited.
Actually, it was never a part of John, it was originally associated with Luke, and was not accepted into the canon until AD 200.
What the Judeans failed to grasp is that the sin of remarriage is a matter between the purpetrators and G_d, and no business of the Judeans, because no man had suffered any civil loss, so there is no civil case.
Thus Our Lord exercises the judgement of mercy, and imposes a rebuke on the offendor.

 

[jcrichton]

Exactly so, and that is why the tale was so emmended, to show Our Lord in a better light.
The text that indicates that this is a re-married divorcee is that she was caught in ‘flagrante delicto’, in the very act, yet the co-adulterer is not in the same dock.
Under Mosaic law, he clearly should be. Yet he is not. He is at least needed as a ‘corpus delicti’.
So under Judaic law, there is no case.
Thus the case must be a challenge to Our Lord’s teaching that re-marriage after divorce is adulterous.
You need to read between the lines, for the original tale has been edited.
Actually, it was never a part of John, it was originally associated with Luke, and was not accepted into the canon until AD 200.
What the Judeans failed to grasp is that the sin of remarriage is a matter between the purpetrators and G_d, and no business of the Judeans, because no man had suffered any civil loss, so there is no civil case.
Thus Our Lord exercises the judgement of mercy, and imposes a rebuke on the offendor.

These changes and omissions, why are you so certain they’ve been done? Do you have the actual documents that can porve that these omissions and permutations have indeed taken place?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

These changes and omissions, why are you so certain they’ve been done? Do you have the actual documents that can porve that these omissions and permutations have indeed taken place?

Maran atha!

Angel

Dear Angel,
the document itself is the witness.
As it stands it is inconsistant.
The only way in which consistancy can be restored is as I have stated.
The woman was only an adultererss under the treachings of Our Lord.
This was the essence of the challenge from the Judeans.
Our Lord’s judgement was sound, but some found it a little weak, so the tale was emmended, but the emmendation destroyed the consistancy.

 

[jcrichton]

Dear Angel,
the document itself is the witness.
As it stands it is inconsistant.
The only way in which consistancy can be restored is as I have stated.
The woman was only an adultererss under the treachings of Our Lord.
This was the essence of the challenge from the Judeans.
Our Lord’s judgement was sound, but some found it a little weak, so the tale was emmended, but the emmendation destroyed the consistancy.

Hi!

The problem with that logic is that anyone can claim to see faulty reconstruction in any portion of the Sacred Writings and claim that it is self-evident… just look at the Jehovah Witnesses–they say they are Christians but negate Christ’s Divinity. They use their sect’s interpretation of what and how the Holy Scriptures should contain and how they must be understood. Similarly, the Mormons use a single passage in Scripture to authenticate their founder’s writings, which they equate to the Word of God–never mind that Paul speaks on the Salvation of both the Jews and Gentiles and how Christ tore down the wall that separated both people making one Nation onto Himself!

By reasoning as you do anyone can claim that “Jesus made me do it.” when caught committing a crime/immoral act; when their statement is question all they have to say is “He wrote it on the ground… it wasn’t just scribble, He was telling me to…”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Exactly so, and that is why the tale was so emmended, to show Our Lord in a better light.
The text that indicates that this is a re-married divorcee is that she was caught in ‘flagrante delicto’, in the very act, yet the co-adulterer is not in the same dock.
Under Mosaic law, he clearly should be. Yet he is not. He is at least needed as a ‘corpus delicti’.
So under Judaic law, there is no case.
Thus the case must be a challenge to Our Lord’s teaching that re-marriage after divorce is adulterous.
You need to read between the lines, for the original tale has been edited.
Actually, it was never a part of John, it was originally associated with Luke, and was not accepted into the canon until AD 200.
What the Judeans failed to grasp is that the sin of remarriage is a matter between the purpetrators and G_d, and no business of the Judeans, because no man had suffered any civil loss, so there is no civil case.
Thus Our Lord exercises the judgement of mercy, and imposes a rebuke on the offendor.

This is very forced exegesis! It is much more likely that the man had gotten away. In the Jewish law the woman could even have been held guilty of adultery if she was raped inside the city and didn’t cry out. Of course, if one doesn’t believe in the truth or inspiration of the gospels, one can posit anything.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This is very forced exegesis! It is much more likely that the man had gotten away. In the Jewish law the woman could even have been held guilty of adultery if she was raped inside the city and didn’t cry out. Of course, if one doesn’t believe in the truth or inspiration of the gospels, one can posit anything.

If that is what you see,then there is no argument.
However, only the original versions, from the pen, or scribe of the evangelists are accepted as inspired.
What we have are copies and translations. The originals are no longer extant.
The Pericopa adulterae was not part of John’s writing, but was added to his account in AD200, previously it had been associated with Luke, but was not part of his account either.
Appealing to the Greek is in vain, for there are as many versions as there are copies.
Everyone but the blind accept that changes have occurred, most of them minor, or trivial, but some do have their meanings changed by the error.
I will leave you to consider the two sons in the vineyard, who did his father’s will?
Clementine says the first, whereas Stuttgart says the last.
The Codex Fuldensis here supports Stuttgart, and Shonfield, reading the best Greek he can find also finds the last, but he perversely fails to understand that first means firstborn, and last means youngest, which is as found in the Arabic Diatessaron.
Thus there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that at least on this point, the Biblia Sacra Vulgata Clementina may be in error.

 

[jcrichton]

I will leave you to consider the two sons in the vineyard, who did his father’s will?
Clementine says the first, whereas Stuttgart says the last.
The Codex Fuldensis here supports Stuttgart, and Shonfield, reading the best Greek he can find also finds the last, but he perversely fails to understand that first means firstborn, and last means youngest, which is as found in the Arabic Diatessaron.
Thus there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that at least on this point, the Biblia Sacra Vulgata Clementina may be in error.

Hi!

…ever heard the expression, “Less is more.?”

In your reference to St. Matthew 21:28-32 the argument about which son did the will of the father is not up for grabs; it is clear cut:

Jesus is telling the Jews that they (the First Born of Yahweh God) refuse to humble themselves to God and Believe in Him (Yeshua) and thusly obtain Salvation; while, the Gentiles, who up to that time were not of the People of God, listen and obey!

Clearly the characters in the parable and the actual audience to whom Jesus spoke were not in agreement: in the parable the first born had a change of heart and, eventually, obeyed the father’s request; this is clearly contradicted in the behavior of God’s first born children who refused to obey the Father.

Unless the text of the Scriptures (Biblia Sacra Vulgata Clementina) states something differentevents it is not that version of the Word of God that is wrong, but it is the interpretation that contradicts it that is wrong.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Angel
Please re-read your text.
I was not Quoting the verdict of Our Lord, but the answer of the Judeans to his challenge.
Here is a summary of the account as fron Stuttgart, Fuldensis, and Clementine.
Stuttgart and Clementine are translated in the style of DR.

Mt. 21:28

Modified DR:
But what think you?
**A man had **two sons: and coming to the first, he said:
Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

Stuttgart:
quid autem vobis videtur
**homo habebat **duos filios et accedens ad primum dixit
fili vade hodie operare in vinea mea

Fuldensis:
Quid vobis videtur?
**Homo habebat **duos filios, et accedens ad primum dixit:
fili, vade hodie, operare in vinea mea.

Clementine:
Quid autem vobis videtur ?
**Homo quidam habebat **duos filios, et accedens ad primum, dixit:
Fili, vade hodie, operare in vinea mea.

DR:
But what think you?
**A certain man had **two sons: and coming to the first, he said:
Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

Clementine has ‘Homo quidam habebat’ : ‘A certain man had’, whereas Stuttgart has ‘homo habebat’: ‘A man had’.
Fuldensis supports Stuttgart *

Mt. 21:29

Modified DR:
And he answering, said:
I will not.
But afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went.

Stuttgart:
ille autem respondens ait
nolo
postea autem paenitentia motus abiit

Fuldensis:
Ille autem respondens ait:
nolo.
Postea autem pænitentia motus abiit.

Clementine:
Ille autem respondens, ait:
Nolo.
Postea autem, pœnitentia motus, abiit.

DR:
And he answering, said:
I will not.
But afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went.

Mt. 21:30

Modified DR:
And coming to the other, he said in like manner.
And he answering said:
I go, Sir.
And he went not.

Stuttgart:
accedens autem ad alterum dixit similiter
at ille respondens ait
eo domine
et non ivit

Fuldensis:
Accedens autem ad alterum dixit similiter.
At ille respondens ait:
eo, domine,
et non ivit.

Clementine:
Accedens autem ad alterum, dixit similiter.
At ille respondens, ait :
Eo, domine,
et non ivit:

DR:
And coming to the other, he said in like manner.
And he answering said:
I go, Sir.
And he went not.

Mt. 21:31

Modified DR:
Which of the two did the father’s will?
They say:
The youngest.
Jesus saith to them:
Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall be within the kingdom of God, before you.

Stuttgart:
quis ex duobus fecit voluntatem patris
dicunt
novissimus
dicit illis Iesus
amen dico vobis quia publicani et meretrices praecedunt vos in regno Dei

Fuldensis:
Quis ex duobus fecit voluntatem patris?
Dicunt:
novissimus.
Dicit illis Ihesus:
amen dico vobis, quia publicani et meretrices præcedent vos in regno dei.

Clementine:
quis ex duobus fecit voluntatem patris ?
Dicunt ei:
Primus.
Dicit illis Jesus :
Amen dico vobis, quia publicani et meretrices præcedent vos in regnum Dei.

DR:
Which of the two did the father’s will?
They say to him:
The first.
Jesus saith to them:
Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you.

Clementine has ‘Dicunt ei ‘ : ‘They say to him’, whereas Stuttgart has ‘dicunt’ : ‘They say’, and,
Clementine has ‘Primus’ : ‘first’, whereas Stuttgart has ‘novissimus’ : ‘youngest’, and,
Clementine has ‘in regnum’ : ‘into the kingdom’ , whereas Stuttgart has ‘in regno’ : ‘within the kingdom’.
Fuldensis supports Stuttgart in all cases.*

Mt. 21:32

Modified DR:
For John came to you in the way of justice: and you did not believe him.
But the publicans and the harlots believed him:
but you, seeing it, did not even afterwards repent, that you might believe him.

Stuttgart:
venit enim ad vos Iohannes in via iustitiae et non credidistis ei
publicani autem et meretrices crediderunt ei
vos autem videntes nec paenitentiam habuistis postea ut crederetis ei

Fuldensis:
Venit enim ad vos Iohannes in via iustitiæ, et non credidistis ei;
publicani autem et meretrices crediderunt ei:
vos autem videntes nec pænitentiam habuistis postea, ut crederetis ei.

Clementine:
Venit enim ad vos Joannes in via justitiæ, et non credidistis ei:
publicani autem et meretrices crediderunt ei :
vos autem videntes nec pœnitentiam habuistis postea, ut crederetis ei.

DR:
For John came to you in the way of justice: and you did not believe him.
But the publicans and the harlots believed him:
but you, seeing it, did not even afterwards repent, that you might believe him.

This is not a simple moral tale: it is obvious that neither presented their father with obedience.
The first disobeyed outright, though he later repented.
The last, or youngest, accepted the command, and for some reason failed to carry it out.
We might think that justice was served by the first, for he actually carried out the task, but the fact stands, that he disobeyed.
What we see here is the Judeans judging according to Roman Law, which we stil follow to some extent in military law.
Disobeying an order is a serious ‘Court Martial’ offence, and on the field, can be sumarily punished by execution on the spot.
Failing to comply is a less serious matter, usually handled by the unit commander, and the reasons for the failure are considered.
It is because the Judeans judge according to Roman Law, and not justice, that Our Lord so curses them.
Clementine totally misses this point.