Maga!! Yeehaw!!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Until later

Just a quick thought. I was thinking of the woman caught in adultery who stood, under the Law, to be stoned for her actions.

And incidentally, I referenced the woman with the issue of blood in an earlier post, but meant that the hypocritical men brought the woman caught in the act of adultery, laying her at the feet of mercy.

I believe that Jesus put it in their minds to catch her, bringing her to Him so that he could teach them a lesson.

My thinking is that both acts of homosexuality and adultery were remedied by stoning under the Law. So, if by Jesus' actions the Law was overridden and the sin of adultery forgiven, wouldn't that same action toward homosexuality apply?

Of course, it depends on the person's heart and whether or not they want to be loosed from any type of sin. In that case, we would put them out of the church, as the scriptures instruct us to do.

Okay, back to work.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Just a quick thought. I was thinking of the woman caught in adultery who stood, under the Law, to be stoned for her actions.

And incidentally, I referenced the woman with the issue of blood in an earlier post, but meant that the hypocritical men brought the woman caught in the act of adultery, laying her at the feet of mercy.

I believe that Jesus put it in their minds to catch her, bringing her to Him so that he could teach them a lesson.

My thinking is that both acts of homosexuality and adultery were remedied by stoning under the Law. So, if by Jesus' actions the Law was overridden and the sin of adultery forgiven, wouldn't that same action toward homosexuality apply?

Of course, it depends on the person's heart and whether or not they want to be loosed from any type of sin. In that case, we would put them out of the church, as the scriptures instruct us to do.

Okay, back to work.

Jesus did not override the Law. In fact He affirmed it, and called for the witnesses to start the stoning. But He demanded it be done ACCORDING TO THE LAW, which the woman's accusers were NOT obeying. If she was "caught in the act" then where was the guy? Because the Law demanded his death as well.

So they left, because they were NOT upholding the Law, but just as guilty of trespass as their accusation against the woman. So the (false) witnesses scatter, and there being no witnesses Jesus says He refuses to accuse her. No two witnesses available to withstand scrutiny, therefore she CANNOT lawfully be stoned.

Jesus tells her "go and sin no more".

The story does NOT IN ANY WAY overturn God's law but is a perfect example of how Jesus kept and upheld it.

Sin wasn't remediated under the law, it was punished and the sinner extirpated from society.

In that pesky dusty Old Testament God stated very clearly He had no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but much preferred the wicked to repent and live. But that doesn't mean God was looking for a way to let the wicked go and live CONTINUING IN SIN.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Are you saying that we are still commanded to stone people for homosexuality? Love the sinner, hate the sin is the NT teaching, isn’t it? Should we be thrilled that gays are being hung anywhere? Is approving of murder our approach to sin?

"We" aren't the state. The state is commissioned by God to execute justice, including punishment for sin.

"Love the sinner hate the sin" is not a Bible verse.

Nobody said be thrilled that murderers are being executed, or sodomites, or whoever. That's not the issue.

The state executing criminals when God said to execute criminals is not murder.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Just a quick thought. I was thinking of the woman caught in adultery who stood, under the Law, to be stoned for her actions.

And incidentally, I referenced the woman with the issue of blood in an earlier post, but meant that the hypocritical men brought the woman caught in the act of adultery, laying her at the feet of mercy.

I believe that Jesus put it in their minds to catch her, bringing her to Him so that he could teach them a lesson.

My thinking is that both acts of homosexuality and adultery were remedied by stoning under the Law. So, if by Jesus' actions the Law was overridden and the sin of adultery forgiven, wouldn't that same action toward homosexuality apply?

Of course, it depends on the person's heart and whether or not they want to be loosed from any type of sin. In that case, we would put them out of the church, as the scriptures instruct us to do.

Okay, back to work.

Jesus didn't override anything. But by their own omission they couldn't activate the law. One, there was no male available. Remember she was caught in the very act, which in adultery involves two. Yet, Jesus had to make the obvious decision which was to ask where the man was who was caught with the woman. He (male) without sin cast the first stone. I am not saying that all the men were involved with the woman, but that all knew that there was important elements left out of their accusations against the female. If there was both offenders present, we may of recieved a different verdict from Jesus?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Jesus didn't override anything. But by their own omission they couldn't activate the law. One, there was no male available. Remember she was caught in the very act, which in adultery involves two. Yet, Jesus had to make the obvious decision which was to ask where the man was who was caught with the woman. He (male) without sin cast the first stone. I am not saying that all the men were involved with the woman, but that all knew that there was important elements left out of their accusations against the female. If there was both offenders present, we may of recieved a different verdict from Jesus?

What is your opinion on this:

This is Moses' Law - "what sayest thou?" This query involves an ascription to Jesus of the right of authoritatively interpreting the Law. thus attributing to him the functions of a new legislator. Some have objected to the bare possibility of such an appeal being made to Jesus by any species of Jewish authority. The whole context shows that the process was malicious, ironical, crafty. The entire audience knew that this law had never been accepted or applied literally; that the Sanhedrin had not enforced it; and that, if they had endeavoured to do so, the Roman power had taken from the nation the jus gladii. The question, therefore, became one of casuistry inflamed by a concrete case, and having as its ally a secret sympathy with the offenders. It was not uncommon for the rabbis to discuss the incidence of obsolete laws. Many of the glosses upon the ancient law, and laborious trifling with specific regulations of the so called oral law, turn upon customs that were absolutely impracticable under the new conditions of the Jewish life. This, however, was no mere quibble of words about possible duties. The query was put with dramatic force and in concrete form. The shame and life of a fellow creature were the materials which this eager and bloodthirsty group were utilizing for their vile purpose.
Pulpit Commentary

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What is your opinion on this:

The pulpit commentary offering is the rabbinical answer to stoning.
In the case of a disrespectful son, the rabbis claim it was never carried out.
Jesus was answering under the Roman and Judean law. One, He was presented capital punishment situation from the Judeans. Woman, man, adultery. Yet, Jesus had to deal with "we have no law to put a man to death" meaning that under Roman law stoning, or the Sanhedrin carrying out any verdict of capital punishment impossible. Not saying that rouge groups didn't carry out stoning, but if caught they would of been arrested then put to death by the Roman law. Especially in the case of Paul, Acts 14:19. Who was a freeborn Roman, which would of by necessity brought the penalty of death to those caught stoning a freeborn Roman.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

The pulpit commentary offering is the rabbinical answer to stoning.
In the case of a disrespectful son, the rabbis claim it was never carried out.
Jesus was answering under the Roman and Judean law. One, He was presented capital punishment situation from the Judeans. Woman, man, adultery. Yet, Jesus had to deal with "we have no law to put a man to death" meaning that under Roman law stoning, or the Sanhedrin carrying out any verdict of capital punishment impossible. Not saying that rouge groups didn't carry out stoning, but if caught they would of been arrested then put to death by the Roman law. Especially in the case of Paul, Acts 14:19. Who was a freeborn Roman, which would of by necessity brought the penalty of death to those caught stoning a freeborn Roman.

Okay, that makes sense. I read this as well:

Orthodox Judaism

Orthodox Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan wrote:

"In practice, ... these punishments were almost never invoked, and existed mainly as a deterrent and to indicate the seriousness of the sins for which they were prescribed. The rules of evidence and other safeguards that the Torah provides to protect the accused made it all but impossible to actually invoke these penalties ... the system of judicial punishments could become brutal and barbaric unless administered in an atmosphere of the highest morality and piety. When these standards declined among the Jewish people, the Sanhedrin ... voluntarily abolished this system of penalties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita...ent_in_Judaism

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Okay, that makes sense. I read this as well:

Orthodox Judaism

Yes, because sadly some Christian denominations and their seminaries would take Rabbinical thought as Biblical. Commentaries at times rife with Rabbinical "opinions" which should be taken with more than just a grain of salt. The pulpit commentary doesn't give us their source. So we take it at face value. It then finds its way over a pulpit near you. Again, never qualified, no primary sources given. Everyone nods, and amens, then move on. When Rabbi Finkelstein would come to our outdoor Bible study, he would confidently make such proclamations, and statements. Until the students would be unleashed to ask questions. The questions always went to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Where the students asked for where is the proof in the Bible? Clearly the Bible stated differently then his Talmudic commentary.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yes, because sadly some Christian denominations and their seminaries would take Rabbinical thought as Biblical. Commentaries at times rife with Rabbinical "opinions" which should be taken with more than just a grain of salt. The pulpit commentary doesn't give us their source. So we take it at face value. It then finds its way over a pulpit near you. Again, never qualified, no primary sources given. Everyone nods, and amens, then move on. When Rabbi Finkelstein would come to our outdoor Bible study, he would confidently make such proclamations, and statements. Until the students would be unleashed to ask questions. The questions always went to the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. Where the students asked for where is the proof in the Bible? Clearly the Bible stated differently then his Talmudic commentary.

I agree. When I am teaching, I rarely use anything that I have read quoted by a Rabbi. On the quotes that I sent you, it seemed plausible that this was the progression on stoning,

It reminds me of Fiddler on the Roof. The Jewish men would stand around, make their points and then spit on the ground. LOL!

Well, have a good day. One more glitch to work through! I am done here.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I agree. When I am teaching, I rarely use anything that I have read quoted by a Rabbi. On the quotes that I sent you, it seemed plausible that this was the progression on stoning,

It reminds me of Fiddler on the Roof. The Jewish men would stand around, make their points and then spit on the ground. LOL!

Well, have a good day. One more glitch to work through! I am done here.

Funny, because The Fiddler on the Roof meant, unstability, shakiness, something not stable. The story is about this shakiness in traditions of Russian Jews. Which is exactly what Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism was. While they tried to keep with traditions those traditions weren't actually founded on Biblical book, chapter, and verse. Therefore they were constantly argued among their clergy, as will as their congregants. To break with traditions (time honored) would have an obvious spiraling effect. Causing irreparable damage. Which why the most ancient religions adhere to their traditions even if their holy books are sketchy or silent on those traditions being based on book, chapter, and verse. Hence the reason why Orthodoxy in Eastern Christianity, Judaism, and Islam far surpass their rivals with numbers. People tend to like the unchanging traditions and will keep those traditions even if those traditions are not found in their holy books. Why? Because they want to play the fiddle on flat platform. Sadly we live in a time where the fiddlers are playing on the steepest of inclines. When that fiddler falls it will make a huge mess.