[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

He didn't mislead us, you ignorant fool. He meant exactly what He said. The point is that He meant other than what you think because you are ignoring that which had come before: the Law. Jesus knew it, and so did those men. They were committing sin[s] at the very moment this event took place, as I showed above. They were transgressing the very law they were pretending to uphold in at least two ways, if not more.

I was pointing that by your line of reasoning He would be misleading us. I never said I was mislead. I know that He meant exactly what He said. But you keep trying to bring technicalities of the law into this to try and muddy up the water. Jesus could have been very specific by explaing the technicalities here, He did not. Instead He chose to make a very general statement as her vinvication. Do you think they were only guilty of transgressing the law in this scenario? Is this not also indicative of a greater issue which Jesus was illustrating?

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

You said that all we have to go on are the facts of what Jesus said in the story.


"The facts are what Jesus was reported to say. If he was trying to use some technicality in the law He would have said that."
-noguru

I was being very specific, and I clarified by mentioning that he wrote in the sand. Are you always this stupid?

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

He was speaking specifically about the men who brought the woman to Him; who was without sin among them; no one else.

Yeah, OK. Then why was it recorded for us? So that people like you can try and confuse everyone about what Jesus really meant?

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by noguru

I was pointing that by your line of reasoning He would be misleading us. I never said I was mislead. I know that He meant exactly what He said. But you keep trying to bring technicalities of the law into this to try and muddy up the water.

Jesus was born under the law; it still held at that time and Jesus never broke it. How would He be misleading if what I say is true?

I was being very specific, and I clarified by mentioning that he wrote in the sand. Are you always this stupid?

I'm not the stupid one here.

Yeah, OK. Then why was it recorded for us? So that people like you can try and confuse everyone about what Jesus really meant?

See. You're clearly the stupid one.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Jesus was born under the law; it still held at that time and Jesus never broke it. How would He be misleading if what I say is true?

I am not saying Jesus was trying to mislead us, or anyone else be they educated or not in the law. He chose to make a very general statement regarding sin, and not specifically address the technicalities being transgressed at that moment. That is a fact. From that fact, who would you think was the intended audience?

And yes Jesus was under the law as a man. That is why later on He accepted his fate to be put to death as a man. Yet this would not preclude Him from being very specific about this specific situation, rather than make a generalized statement about sin as vindication for this person. Are you honestly saying that you do not see a little foreshadowing of the completed Gospel here?

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

I'm not the stupid one here.


See. You're clearly the stupid one.

OK, if you say so.

[Sum1sGruj]

Galatians 5:1-4
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

This passage is very clear and straight-forward, there really is no way around it. Bind this with other verses, and the message expands: When Jesus said that let he without sin cast the first stone, he was speaking of a man which lives completely by the law and not the grace of Christ. If one is to stone one to death or support the death penalty, then by all means, incorporate all of Leviticus into your lifestyle. See how well you fare undergoing those laws . Seriously, if one finds Shariah Law to be tough, just read through the third book in the Bible. Even Islam is a picnic in comparison.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by noguru

I am not saying Jesus was trying to mislead us, or anyone else be they educated or not in the law. He chose to make a very general statement regarding sin, and not specifically address the technicalities being transgressed at that moment. That is a fact. From that fact, who would you think was the intended audience?

I didn't say you were trying to say He was misleading; you said that if I were correct then He was misleading, so I asked you how He would be misleading if I were correct. Use your brain.

He was referring to those present as He made that clear with the words, "...among you..." The were the intended audience, so He was referring specifically to their sins and no one else's.

What do you think He wrote in the sand?

And yes Jesus was under the law as a man. That is why later on He accepted his fate to be put to death as a man. Yet this would not preclude Him from being very specific about this specific situation, rather than make a generalized statement about sin as vindication for this person. Are you honestly saying that you do not see a little foreshadowing of the completed Gospel here?

What I see is proof that Jesus upheld the Law. And His writing in the sand was quite specific as it was clearly what made the witnesses leave. What do you think He wrote?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

I didn't say you were trying to say He was misleading; you said that if I were correct then He was misleading, so I asked you how He would be misleading if I were correct. Use your brain.

He was referring to those present as He made that clear with the words, "...among you..." The were the intended audience, so He was referring specifically to their sins and no one else's.

What do you think He wrote in the sand?


What I see is proof that Jesus upheld the Law. And His writing in the sand was quite specific as it was clearly what made the witnesses leave. What do you think He wrote?

I've given my clear view on this.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by noguru

I've given my clear view on this.

And so I stand by my initial assertion.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

And so I stand by my initial assertion.

Really, that's not suprising. This is why I pretty much avoid dialogue with you. It is like trying to discuss calculous with a preschooler. Just because you choose not to see the obvious reality, does not mean that I have to follow suit.



The words "among you" do not mean He was limiting it to that crowd. Jesus knew his words would be written down for all to see. You expect us to believe that he spoke those words in public, to a specific group, yet they do not apply to all. That is only because you refuse to see how those words apply to all people. And you think I am being stupid. I think you are being an pretentious elitist.



So do you think the woman actually comitted adultery or not?

If she did not commit adultery then why the parting words "Go and sin no more"?

If she did commit adultery then He let her go on a technicality that there were not the required witnesses, it was not in the proper place, and perhaps some other letter of the law? Is that what you think?

Do you think Jesus always followed the letter of the law over the spirit of the law?

Exactly what motivation do you think Jesus had to let her go then? Is it because he was concerned about not following the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law?

Or are you claiming that he did not want to be convicted for breaking the letter of OT law?

And you still have not answered "Why he made the general statement He did about sin, rather than a specific objection to a failed prosecution?"

Now I know you want us to think Jesus was doing a little soft shoe to remain under the letter of the law, but I strongly suspect that is more reflective of your attitudes than what is really meant by the Gospel.

I am curious why you think that if Jesus really wanted us to stone adulterers why He would not have just said "Go get two witnesses, bring her to the sanctioned place for stoning... and then we can stone her."?

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by noguru

Jesus knew his words would be written down for all to see.

I'd like to know where you get this idea. There is no indication at all that Jesus knew this particular story would be written down. There's actually a verse that states that not all He did while in His three year ministry was written down. What makes you think He knew what would be written and what would not? I mean, we already know that all four accounts of His life that we have in the NT were written well after the fact. So how could He possibly have known?

If He had known that story would be relayed in such a manner that He might have told the 12 what He wrote in the sand, so as to make the whole thing perfectly clear?

Also, it is clear that He had not intended to actually say anything, but the hard headed, heard hearted, accusers weren't getting His drift, so He had to clarify a bit.

You expect us to believe that he spoke those words in public, to a specific group, yet they do not apply to all.

Yup. Just like when He called some of those same people "brood of vipers," "sons of hell," "children of the father of lies," "serpents," etc.

That is only because you refuse to see how those words apply to all people. And you think I am being stupid. I think you are being an pretentious elitist.

I used to think they applied to me, then I realized that He had removed my transgressions from me and had put me under grace where I am no longer under the law. I am free from sin, so those words cannot apply to me, except maybe to tell me that I am free to throw the first stone.

So do you think the woman actually comitted adultery or not?

As He told her to "Go and sin no more," I certainly believe she was actually guilty.

If she did not commit adultery then why the parting words "Go and sin no more"?

See above. I never said she wasn't guilty.

If she did commit adultery then He let her go on a technicality that there were not the required witnesses, it was not in the proper place, and perhaps some other letter of the law? Is that what you think?

Actually I think He let her go on just the first one, mostly. But He knew that would happen with what He wrote on the ground and what He said to them. We are also told later, by possibly one of the men mentioned here, that the Romans were not allowing the Jews to put anyone to death, so Jesus was sidestepping any ramifications from that, as well. For if He had said to stone her they would have had that against Him with the Romans, and if He had said not to they would have had that against Him with the Jews who believed in the Law. Jesus avoided both in what He did.

Do you think Jesus always followed the letter of the law over the spirit of the law?

There is no "spirit of the law." And Jesus followed the Law as He had given it.

Exactly what motivation do you think Jesus had to let her go then? Is it because he was concerned about not following the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law?

See above.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

See above.

I am curious why you think that if Jesus really wanted us to stone adulterers why He would not have just said "Go get two witnesses, bring her to the sanctioned place for stoning... and then we can stone her."?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

There is no "spirit of the law." And Jesus followed the Law as He had given it.

First off you are entirely wrong on that, as any first year legal student can tell you. But I know you like to rewrite logic as much as you like to rewrite history.

Jesus gave the law for imperfect humans to follow, not for the Supreme judge. Jesus was not confined by the letter of the law as he gave it to humans. But now it is entirely obvious that you definitely will not concede any point that will demonstrate the raving lunatic and pretentious elitist that you truly are.

Jesus went against the letter in regard to the Sabbath. He went against the letter (and the spirit to the Jews) in regard to his proclaimed diety, he never broke the letter by saying I am God. This also ties into Jesus statement that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by noguru

I am curious why you think that if Jesus really wanted us to stone adulterers why He would not have just said "Go get two witnesses, bring her to the sanctioned place for stoning... and then we can stone her."?

I already explained that.

Also, He would not have needed to ask for two witnesses as the men who brought her were witnesses.

When was the last time you read it? It seems you need to refresh your memory.

[Lighthouse]

Originally Posted by noguru

First off you are entirely wrong on that, as any first year legal student can tell you.]

Then give me Scripture. Any Scripture that refers to a "spirit of the law." Go ahead.

But I know you like to rewrite logic as much as you like to rewrite history.

I have done neither.

Jesus gave the law for imperfect humans to follow, not for the supreme judge. Jesus was not confined by the letter of the law as he gave it to humans. But now it is entirely obvious that you definitely will not concede any point that will demonstrate the raving lunatic and pretentious elitist that you truly are.

You are exceptionally dumb. While Jesus walked this Earth in the flesh He lived according to the law. He was born under it and lived under it.

And at what point have I raved?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

Then give me Scripture. Any Scripture that refers to a "spirit of the law." Go ahead.

Give me any scripture that refers to the trinity?

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

I have done neither.

Yes you have.

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

You are exceptionally dumb. While Jesus walked this Earth in the flesh He lived according to the law. He was born under it and lived under it.

Jesus made specific distinctinction between the letter and the spirit of the law in regard to preforming miracles on the Sabbath. But I really don't expect you to understand. It is usually those who call others dumb, that are actually lacking themselves. And those are the people who usually compensate by being pretentious elitists. Your inability to understand these clear issues does not mean we all have to follow suit.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

And at what point have I raved?

Take your pick of your last several posts in this thread.