• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Testament Morality

DavidSMoore

Member
Reported to have said, or said?

It seems that you are claiming that gMt
  1. was a relatively early composition in which the author*
  2. accurately recorded the words of Jesus.
Yes?

============================================

* the same author who gave us the virgin birth story

Well, let's just review the overall timeline of the writing of the works of the New Testament. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were all written decades after the death of Jesus. The book of John was the last to be written, and it was written in about the year 90 CE. And they were written in Greek. None of the gospels is an actual transcription of any writings ever produced by Jesus. And did Jesus speak Greek? I don't know of any explicit evidence that says he did. But we DO have evidence that he spoke in both Hebrew and Aramaic. So it seems to me most likely that the original stories about the life of Jesus would have been repeated orally, probably in either Hebrew or Aramaic or both, and would then have been translated by... someone into Greek. It seems to me that there must have been multiple layers of oral repetition and translation between the origin of the Jesus narratives and their eventual recording as written texts.

So were the words of Jesus accurately recorded and reported in the New Testament? I think the gospels represent the most accurate recordings we have of the several traditions about the life of Jesus that were circulating at the time. The main thrust of my original posting in this thread is that there are clear discrepancies between the Jesus of the book of Matthew who emphasized forgiving the sins of other people and the Jesus of the book of John who never once mentioned it. So somewhere along the line parts of the original narrative must have diverged. I don't know when or why, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Did I answer your question?
 

jimb

Active Member
Premium Member
Those are fair points. I would just add that the passages you cited from Colossians and from Corinthians are from the writings of Paul. All of the passages I cited in my original posting were from the mouth of Jesus. Especially where morality is concerned, I think we should begin with the explicit words of Jesus.
I believe that the entire Bible is inspired, including the writings of Paul and the other apostles.
 

jimb

Active Member
Premium Member
Well, let's just review the overall timeline of the writing of the works of the New Testament. The gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were all written decades after the death of Jesus. The book of John was the last to be written, and it was written in about the year 90 CE. And they were written in Greek. None of the gospels is an actual transcription of any writings ever produced by Jesus. And did Jesus speak Greek? I don't know of any explicit evidence that says he did. But we DO have evidence that he spoke in both Hebrew and Aramaic. So it seems to me most likely that the original stories about the life of Jesus would have been repeated orally, probably in either Hebrew or Aramaic or both, and would then have been translated by... someone into Greek. It seems to me that there must have been multiple layers of oral repetition and translation between the origin of the Jesus narratives and their eventual recording as written texts.

So were the words of Jesus accurately recorded and reported in the New Testament? I think the gospels represent the most accurate recordings we have of the several traditions about the life of Jesus that were circulating at the time. The main thrust of my original posting in this thread is that there are clear discrepancies between the Jesus of the book of Matthew who emphasized forgiving the sins of other people and the Jesus of the book of John who never once mentioned it. So somewhere along the line parts of the original narrative must have diverged. I don't know when or why, and I don't think anyone else does either.

Did I answer your question?
I don't not regard the gospel accounts as being the equivalent of Western journalism. They were written to teach moral truths, as Luke says, "Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught." Luke 1:1-4
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
So were the words of Jesus accurately recorded and reported in the New Testament? I think the gospels represent the most accurate recordings we have of the several traditions about the life of Jesus that were circulating at the time.

Thanks for the response.

I personally see nothing that justifies the phrase "most accurate recordings" as opposed to, e.g., pedagogical contrivances. At issue is not simply fidelity but also intent. One need only spend a bit of time reading midrash (see here for a personal favorite) to recognize the latter as being relatively common.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Happy to provide. I'll offer the example of Catherine Howard, the fifth wife of Henry VIII. She was executed after she was found guilty of having committed ADULTERY with her cousin while she was the QUEEN OF ENGLAND and therefore had no need of MONEY or of any other MATERIAL COMPENSATION. (See-- I can do ALL CAPS too! :D)

In my estimation the motivations of women are as many and as varied as are the motivations of men-- and perhaps even more so.

You said that Jesus said that the adulteress of the story should FIND GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. He said NO SUCH THING! You MADE THAT UP, and now you're upset that I won't agree to your MADE UP VERSION of the story. Sorry, but I'M NOT PLAYING YOUR GAME.

You said that the adulteress in the story was a PROSTITUTE. The story doesn't specifically say that. You MADE IT UP.

If we can't even agree on what the Bible actually says, there's no point in trying to have a conversation about what it means.
I agree that the words the author used was ‘Adultress’ (equivalence) but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t a prostitute.

Can you give me a definition of ‘Prostitute’? What it means….

Whether ‘adultery’ or ‘prostitution’, it’s all the same except that ‘adultery’ is with a married other or the adulterer was themself legally married.

The point and purpose of A WOMAN having sex is ALWAYS for some kind of GAIN…. That is as opposed to a man who FAR MORE LIKELY just want pure and utter gratification. There is no GAIN in that. In fact, he most likely PAYS the woman so SHE GAINS … or he gives her something else of worthy value to her: Gain… sex for Sale…!

All Jews knew the law… and yes, passion might get the better of [a man] but rarely a woman without sone gain… it’s a biological (psychological!?) reality. You can see the same thing in plants where the plant ‘advertises’ itself to attract insects to pollinate it… It’s reward is that it REPRODUCES through seed. However, the insect also gets rewarded - in nature everything exchanged is beneficial (‘cept for scammer plants!)

And, you searched deeply to find a verse that said what you wanted to say about what Jesus said to the woman… But that’s not what the story is about so it’s not that Jesus just told her to go away and he forgave her… He told her to STOP what SHE WAS DOING … stop her repeated act!!!

What on earth reason would a woman be doing JUST HAVING SEX unless there was some kind of gain for her … Prostitution, no less!!!

What Jesus did was to see that the Jews were running a TEST (says it in the verse) and so very likely set up the woman to be caught. Now how do you set up a woman to just have sex with a married man … she would have to be very naive, very highly sexually depraved, or monetarily deprived and needed cash. Women mostly have sex for reproductive reasons in normal circumstances. But many times they confuse love with money. They think if a man has sec with them and pays them them the man must love them….

There’s more but I think you need to check with others as I’m sure you are not a true Bible scholar and just fishing around in Christian forums.

You started off well… it’s true what you said at the beginning … but then when things are delved into, you fall apart….. Words don’t always mean what you see on the surface… Spiritual things, it seems, are above your pay grade.

A bit more studying for you, I think!!!
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Thanks for the response.

I personally see nothing that justifies the phrase "most accurate recordings" as opposed to, e.g., pedagogical contrivances. At issue is not simply fidelity but also intent. One need only spend a bit of time reading midrash (see here for a personal favorite) to recognize the latter as being relatively common.
Yes, I think he’s coming from a good place but DavidSMoore needs a bit more learning on Spiritual matters.
 

DavidSMoore

Member
I believe that the entire Bible is inspired, including the writings of Paul and the other apostles.
I guess it all comes down to what you mean by "Inspired." One book I found helpful was Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Prof. Ehrman is recognized as a world class biblical scholar. His book documents the process by which the biblical materials were disseminated in the first and second centuries. They were manually copied. The versions we have today are copies of copies of copies. None is known to be "original." Inevitably errors in copying crept in. But in addition Prof. Ehrman documents many examples when the texts were intentionally modified. Here’s an example drawn from his lengthy and erudite discussion of the “adoptionist” controversy:

In Luke’s Gospel, as in Mark, when Jesus is baptized, the heavens open up, the Spirit descends upon Jesus in the form of a dove, and a voice comes from heaven. But the manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel are divided concerning what exactly the voice said. According to most of our manuscripts, it spoke the same words one finds in Mark’s account: “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11, Luke 3:23). In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice says something strikingly different: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” Today I have begotten you! Doesn’t that suggest that his day of baptism is the day on which Jesus has become the Son of God? Couldn’t this text be used by an adoptionist Christian to make the point that Jesus became the Son of God at this time?
(Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman, pg. 158 - 159)

I heartily recommend the book to anyone who wants to know something about the trustworthiness of the New Testament texts.
 

DavidSMoore

Member
The point and purpose of A WOMAN having sex is ALWAYS for some kind of GAIN…. That is as opposed to a man who FAR MORE LIKELY just want pure and utter gratification. There is no GAIN in that. In fact, he most likely PAYS the woman so SHE GAINS … or he gives her something else of worthy value to her: Gain… sex for Sale…!
You have repeated that thought in your every response. I responded to it in my previous response with a specific example that contradicts your point-- and you utterly ignored what I said. In fact you've ignored everything I said in all of my previous responses. It appears that there's no point in responding to you further since your habit is to just ignore anything you don't already agree with.
 

DavidSMoore

Member
I personally see nothing that justifies the phrase "most accurate recordings" as opposed to, e.g., pedagogical contrivances. At issue is not simply fidelity but also intent. One need only spend a bit of time reading midrash (see here for a personal favorite) to recognize the latter as being relatively common.
I won't dispute your assessment. Thanks for the link to the "Oven of Akhani" story. I'm not familiar with that body of literature, so it was interesting to read. I would just point out that what I said was the documents that have survived are "the most accurate recordings we have." And as I mentioned in an earlier post the copies we have are all copies of copies of copies, and none of them is known to be an original.

Another book I found fascinating is "The Gospel of Jesus," by James M. Robinson. Prof. Robinson led a group of scholars over a couple of decades who teased out the actual teachings of Jesus from the surviving New Testament texts. The book describes the methods and sources used, and explains why the scholars embarked on the course of research they took. Prof. Robinson was also the editor and manager of the translation of the Nag Hammadi Library.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Thanks for the link to the "Oven of Akhani" story. I'm not familiar with that body of literature, so it was interesting to read.

If one is to insist that the author of gMt was Jewish, it seems reasonable that one would want to aware of midrash.

I would just point out that what I said was the documents that have survived are "the most accurate recordings we have."

But what does that mean? Even if only a single claim were approximately true, it could still be deemed "the most accurate recordings we have."

Prof. Robinson led a group of scholars over a couple of decades who teased out the actual teachings of Jesus from the surviving New Testament texts.

:)
 

jimb

Active Member
Premium Member
I guess it all comes down to what you mean by "Inspired." One book I found helpful was Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. Prof. Ehrman is recognized as a world class biblical scholar. His book documents the process by which the biblical materials were disseminated in the first and second centuries. They were manually copied. The versions we have today are copies of copies of copies. None is known to be "original." Inevitably errors in copying crept in. But in addition Prof. Ehrman documents many examples when the texts were intentionally modified. Here’s an example drawn from his lengthy and erudite discussion of the “adoptionist” controversy:



I heartily recommend the book to anyone who wants to know something about the trustworthiness of the New Testament texts.
I have recently read that book and also heartily recommend it. However, that does not mean that the originals were not inspired, nor does it mean that the scribes were not inspired also. I believe that they were.

If changes were made to the originals, that doesn't mean that the inspired meanings are lost. The same can be said of the various translations that are available. I firmly believe that God can transmit what He wants us to absorb and understand, even if He uses fallible humans to do the work.

"Jesus Before the Gospels" is another of his books. IMHO it's his best.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
You have repeated that thought in your every response. I responded to it in my previous response with a specific example that contradicts your point-- and you utterly ignored what I said. In fact you've ignored everything I said in all of my previous responses. It appears that there's no point in responding to you further since your habit is to just ignore anything you don't already agree with.
No… oh yes, I did… because it’s not a valid example.

It is the act of a desperate woman who was married to a tyrant who only wanted a boy child to succeed him as king. He did not love her nor was it actually required for a either party to LOVE each other since monarchic marriages in those times were mainly about succession of a son and/or cement a relationship between kings or other leading rulers of other kingdoms.

Kathryn did not commit SERIAL ADULTARY but rather, was seeking A SECRET WAY to exist in her failed marriage. The guy was stoked at the idea of having sex with the queen despite the danger that Henry posed: Danger be an aphrodisiac to some - being ‘deliberately naughty’ as a child privilege from the parents!

Diana Spencer (One time Diana, Princess of Wales) in the United Kingdom was a SERIAL ADULTRESS… and she died with the last man she had a dalliance with. To be, and having been with, at least four men while married to crowned prince charles, is as good as prostitution… the payment being that these men GIFTED HER all the pleasures she desired from them!!! Would those men have wanted her if she was not A ‘PRINCESS’ (she wasn’t, it’s just a title as long as she was married to a Prince!!). So her position was key to the men’s desires and she played on that!

Prostitution:
  • the unworthy or corrupt use of one's talents [or position] for personal or financial gain.
Sex for Sale: Prostitution!!!

The woman, if she was married, her husband would have been brought forward to deal with her. This shows that it was a married man she was dealing with … and certainly other men, who aren’t mentioned but since hesus told her to stop what she was doing, it is certain she had done so before:
  • “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
  • “Go, and sin no more.”
But tell me, would you agree / disagree that:
  • “Adultery can be a term for any extramarital sex. Therefore Prostitution would be a form of adultery in that regard.
 
Last edited:

Eli G

Well-Known Member
The offenses that one must forgive are the offenses that affect one personally. Everyone has their own offenders...

No one is authorized to forgive those who commit offenses against other people or against God. We are not one to forgive sins; It is an authority that only corresponds to Jesus Christ, according to his role as rescuer of humans from their offenses against God.
I think you've neglected this passage, from the mouth of Jesus:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48, NRSVue)

If God can forgive the sins of people who committed sins against other persons but not against God or Jesus specifically, then so must his followers.
Not at all. You are confusing magnesia with magnetism.
Common humans do not have the role of being judges either... Secular authorities have their own function under a divine arrangement, so human courts are in charge of judging and condemning offenders of their own laws. Human justice reflects to some degree the justice of God.
Really? What was the divine arrangement that allowed southern Whites to lynch more than 3,000 African Americans with absolute impunity between the collapse of Reconstruction in 1877 and the 1950s when federal forces were sent back into the south to enforce the Civil Rights Act?
Human laws are that: human laws. This human world is not theocratic, but is governed by the one who has authority over it: the enemy of God in the form of a spirit who distanced our first parents from God.

Eph. 2:1 Furthermore, God made you alive, though you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience.

He shaped the world his way, and in that way he was forced to create a justice system to control it. This system reflects divine justice to a certain extent, but evidently this is not always the case.

Rom. 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. 3 For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; 4 for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad.
No person has the authority to judge or forgive sins; ...
But Jesus actually said in Matthew 6:14-15 and Matthew 18:21-23 that his followers must forgive sins! You are injecting your own notions of justice into the actual words that have come down to us through the New Testament writings.
Both passages talk about personal offenders, not about the religious practice of some "priests" to exercise some authority over the forgiveness of others' sins.
... and although he can forgive personal offenders, that does not mean that he is obliged to forget the offenses and harms that others have done to him or his loved ones, but rather that he must not take action on his own, and should hope that divine justice will act justly to condemn all evil and abusive people. That is the hope in God of the just ones.

The Bible is full of complaints to God about injustices of evil people. All Christians who have been abused by others have the right to pray to God for justice on their behalf, or to decide whether to forget the harm another has done to them. It must always be kept in mind that the justice that is demanded in one's favor is the same that will be executed in one's own case if we do the same things we condemn in others.
Although, we, Jehovah's Witnesses, have arrangements for pastors to judge certain private matters of some brothers, they cannot make their own decisions, but this is a private process organized by pastors when necessary, not to judge about trivial issues. These pastors

must be very careful to perceive whether that person has already been forgiven by God, and discipline them reflecting the judgment that It has already been decided for or against the person by the heavens.
First something is bound or loosed in heavens, and then God's servants act accordingly. That is why they must do everything possible to understand the situation objectively before reflecting on the decision already made and not precisely by them.


That is the application of this text:

Matt. 16:19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.”

Furthermore, that kind of process is not public nor does it refer to matters in which one yourself decides to forgive personal offenders, like in these cases about personal forgiveness:

Matt. 5:23 If, then, you are bringing your gift to the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar, and go away. First make your peace with your brother, and then come back and offer your gift.

Lev. 19:17 You must not hate your brother in your heart. You should by all means reprove your fellow man, so that you will not bear sin along with him.

Prov. 25:8 Do not rush into a legal dispute, For what will you do later if your neighbor humiliates you? 9 Plead your case with your neighbor, But do not reveal what you were told confidentially,

Luke 17:3 Pay attention to yourselves. If your brother commits a sin, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.
 

DavidSMoore

Member
No… oh yes, I did… because it’s not a valid example.

[Yawn. This is an utterly boring line of inquiry.]

Here's the Miriam Webster Dictionary's definition of "adultery":
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner
Note the key phrase "married person." The woman in the story of John 7:53 – 8:11 was guilty of adultery, so she must have been married and not a prostitute. BTW, prostitutes were considered an integral part of Jewish society. Consider this portion of the law given to Moses by God:

“The priest who is exalted above his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who has been consecrated to wear the vestments, shall not dishevel his hair nor tear his vestments. He shall not go where there is a dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother. He shall not go outside the sanctuary and thus profane the sanctuary of his God, for the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the Lord. He shall marry only a woman who is a virgin. A widow or a divorced woman or a woman who has been defiled, a prostitute—these he shall not marry. He shall marry a virgin of his own people, that he may not profane his offspring among his people, for I am the Lord; I sanctify him.”
(Leviticus 21:10-15, NRSVue)

So a priest may not marry a prostitute-- but apparently any other male in Jewish society could. So prostitution would have been considered "gainful employment" in ancient Jewish society. Your "definition" of prostitute is far too broad.

I've totally lost the point of your argument. Originally you said that the law that required the stoning of adulterers wasn't "lawful." I showed that it was actually part of the law given to Moses by God and was therefore the very definition of lawful, at least within the context of Jewish society at that time. Then you said that the point of Jesus's forgiveness teachings was to not seek revenge against the perpetrator of a crime, but to let the law take its course-- to which I responded by saying that in the story of the adulteress Jesus interfered and prevented those who sought to execute her from carrying out the punishment mandated by the law. That's the opposite of letting the law take its course. From there your whole narrative seems to have something to do with a distinction you've drawn between adultery and prostitution that I simply can't fathom. And I think it's immaterial to the overall question of what Jesus meant by forgiveness. Did Jesus ever tell someone that his/her sins were forgiven and then inform the authorities of that person's sin so that the person could be arrested and tried and, perhaps, punished? No! The behavior that Jesus modeled was one of simple forgiveness and of not reporting crimes to the authorities. There is no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus ever sought to have a sinner punished under secular law. If you think I'm wrong about that, please provide a specific chapter and verse and I'll reconsider.
 

DavidSMoore

Member
Not at all. You are confusing magnesia with magnetism.
I have no idea what that means.

You:
Human laws are that: human laws. This human world is not theocratic, but is governed by the one who has authority over it: the enemy of God in the form of a spirit who distanced our first parents from God.

I assume that you're referring to the serpent of the story of the garden of Eden. You do understand, don't you, that it's just a story, right? It's not real. Just to show how not real it is, here's a quote from the story about the serpent:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wile animal that the LORD God had made.
(Genesis 3:1, NRSVue)

So according to the story, God created the serpent. But when God finished the act of the creation he pronounced everything good:

God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.
(Genesis 1:31, NRSVue)

But according to you, the serpent (= Satan) is now the spirit who is the enemy of God and who has authority over the earth. Satan is supposed to be the embodiment of pure evil. But if God pronounced everything that he created "good," then how could he have created something so evil? It doesn't make sense. But that's because it's just a story. It's not real.
And in fact all laws are human laws. Some of the laws of the Old Testament that were supposedly given to Moses by God are innovative, some are wise, but some are just plain silly. Did they really come from God? No, they were invented by people-- as was the story of the garden of Eden.

You:
Rom. 13:1 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.

Not true. The existing authorities at the time that Paul wrote would have been the Roman emperors. (By that time the Roman Senate was little more than a rubber stamp for the emperor. The Republic was essentially dead.) How were the Roman emperors selected? Between the time of Augustus and the Antonines they generally rose to power through family lineage-- with liberal doses of poisoning and assassination. Surely you don't expect me to believe that God was directing the machinations of the Roman succession, do you?
Today, in modern democracies, our leaders are chosen by public elections. Does God direct all democratic elections? What about autocrats like Vicor Orban, or Vladimir Putin, or Kim Jong Un? Did God choose them specifically to lead their separate countries by directing their highly un-democratic processes? The idea that God has selected the world's leaders, both in the past and the present, is just plain silly.

You:

Matt. 16:19 I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of the heavens, and whatever you may bind on earth will already be bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loosen on earth will already be loosened in the heavens.”

Furthermore, that kind of process is not public nor does it refer to matters in which one yourself decides to forgive personal offenders, like in these cases about personal forgiveness:

Matt. 5:23 If, then, you are bringing your gift to the altar and there you remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar, and go away. First make your peace with your brother, and then come back and offer your gift.

Lev. 19:17 You must not hate your brother in your heart. You should by all means reprove your fellow man, so that you will not bear sin along with him.

Prov. 25:8 Do not rush into a legal dispute, For what will you do later if your neighbor humiliates you? 9 Plead your case with your neighbor, But do not reveal what you were told confidentially,

Luke 17:3 Pay attention to yourselves. If your brother commits a sin, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.
Those are nice selections, but they don't get to the heart of the matter. What did Jesus mean when he said that he expected his followers to be as perfect as God? If God can forgive all sins other than that of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, including those against others and not himself, then mustn't his followers do the same? I see nothing in any of the examples you've provided to prevent that interpretation.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
[Yawn. This is an utterly boring line of inquiry.]

Here's the Miriam Webster Dictionary's definition of "adultery":

Note the key phrase "married person." The woman in the story of John 7:53 – 8:11 was guilty of adultery, so she must have been married and not a prostitute. BTW, prostitutes were considered an integral part of Jewish society. Consider this portion of the law given to Moses by God:



So a priest may not marry a prostitute-- but apparently any other male in Jewish society could. So prostitution would have been considered "gainful employment" in ancient Jewish society. Your "definition" of prostitute is far too broad.

I've totally lost the point of your argument. Originally you said that the law that required the stoning of adulterers wasn't "lawful." I showed that it was actually part of the law given to Moses by God and was therefore the very definition of lawful, at least within the context of Jewish society at that time. Then you said that the point of Jesus's forgiveness teachings was to not seek revenge against the perpetrator of a crime, but to let the law take its course-- to which I responded by saying that in the story of the adulteress Jesus interfered and prevented those who sought to execute her from carrying out the punishment mandated by the law. That's the opposite of letting the law take its course. From there your whole narrative seems to have something to do with a distinction you've drawn between adultery and prostitution that I simply can't fathom. And I think it's immaterial to the overall question of what Jesus meant by forgiveness. Did Jesus ever tell someone that his/her sins were forgiven and then inform the authorities of that person's sin so that the person could be arrested and tried and, perhaps, punished? No! The behavior that Jesus modeled was one of simple forgiveness and of not reporting crimes to the authorities. There is no evidence in the New Testament that Jesus ever sought to have a sinner punished under secular law. If you think I'm wrong about that, please provide a specific chapter and verse and I'll reconsider.
Where does scriptures say that the woman must have been married…

If she was married then her husband would have been called to cast the first stone at her…

Are you not supposed to be intelligent?? You sound like you should be… but apparently you are not!! Sad!!!!
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
I have no idea what that means.

You:


I assume that you're referring to the serpent of the story of the garden of Eden. You do understand, don't you, that it's just a story, right? It's not real. Just to show how not real it is, here's a quote from the story about the serpent:



So according to the story, God created the serpent. But when God finished the act of the creation he pronounced everything good:



But according to you, the serpent (= Satan) is now the spirit who is the enemy of God and who has authority over the earth. Satan is supposed to be the embodiment of pure evil. But if God pronounced everything that he created "good," then how could he have created something so evil? It doesn't make sense. But that's because it's just a story. It's not real.
And in fact all laws are human laws. Some of the laws of the Old Testament that were supposedly given to Moses by God are innovative, some are wise, but some are just plain silly. Did they really come from God? No, they were invented by people-- as was the story of the garden of Eden.

You:


Not true. The existing authorities at the time that Paul wrote would have been the Roman emperors. (By that time the Roman Senate was little more than a rubber stamp for the emperor. The Republic was essentially dead.) How were the Roman emperors selected? Between the time of Augustus and the Antonines they generally rose to power through family lineage-- with liberal doses of poisoning and assassination. Surely you don't expect me to believe that God was directing the machinations of the Roman succession, do you?
Today, in modern democracies, our leaders are chosen by public elections. Does God direct all democratic elections? What about autocrats like Vicor Orban, or Vladimir Putin, or Kim Jong Un? Did God choose them specifically to lead their separate countries by directing their highly un-democratic processes? The idea that God has selected the world's leaders, both in the past and the present, is just plain silly.

You:


Those are nice selections, but they don't get to the heart of the matter. What did Jesus mean when he said that he expected his followers to be as perfect as God? If God can forgive all sins other than that of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, including those against others and not himself, then mustn't his followers do the same? I see nothing in any of the examples you've provided to prevent that interpretation.
There are several things you’ve for severely wrong in your little banter.
 

DavidSMoore

Member
Where does scriptures say that the woman must have been married…
The scribes and Pharisees identified the woman as an adulteress. Adultery is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner." So the woman must have been married.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
The scribes and Pharisees identified the woman as an adulteress. Adultery is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner." So the woman must have been married.
Yes, adultery is someone who is married having sex with someone else who who is not their spouse or someone having sex with someone else who isn’t their spouse. Or married and having sex with another person who is married… that can be put in a nutshell…

But the question is: Where does it say THE WOMAN was married…..??? Have another look at the definition and show me how you are applying it with disregard to any other option!!

Moreover, IF SHE WAS MARRIED the men would have called her HUSBAND to be the first to cast a stone!!!!
‘Cast the first stone’:
  • ‘To act self-righteously in accusing another person, believing oneself to be blameless.’
A husband who’s wife commits adultery would, by the law and by rights then, be given a stone to cast at her FIRST…

There was no claim that the woman’s ‘Husband’ was called, which tends to imply that:
  • ‘[She had] no husband’
Here is something for you to ponder (surprised you didn’t look it up yourself!):
  • ’If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.’ (Leviticus 20:10)
Tell me, the ‘Adulterer’ is, here, the one who is UNMARRIED. The woman, the ‘Adulteress’, is married. He is the PRIMARY one said to be committing the act…

So, look back at the verse you presented and see that the PRIMARY one stated as committing the act.

Are you going to argue that the man in Leviticus MUST HAVE BEEN MARRIED?…. Because he is called ‘the Adulterer’?
 
Last edited:
Top