Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why was not the man accused of adultery. | John 8:1 | flinkywood | 219219 | ||
No, I don't think it's speculative or adding to scripture, especially when we later see these same men screaming for Jesus' crucifixion. They attempt to wall him in between Moses and Roman territorial law. Jesus deftly turns the tables on them: they can't stone her because they will violate Roman law; and they can't accuse Jesus of false messiahship for violating Mosaic law. Therefore, it's logical to assume the Pharisees' turning away had more to do with having been thwarted than convicted of sin. | ||||||
2 | Why was not the man accused of adultery. | John 8:1 | stjohn | 219224 | ||
Colin, might I add that later in this very chapter those same Pharisees picked up stones to stone Jesus. They sure didn't seem to be giving Roman Law much consideration at that point. In fact they felt quite justified in stoning Him for what they believed to be blasphemy, in calling Himself, "I am" thereby placing Himself on a par with, and the same as God. It would appear that (according to Scripture) Roman Law was not foremost on their mind just a little later that same day. So how could we assume that it was the case earlier that day without some speculation? John |
||||||
3 | Why was not the man accused of adultery. | John 8:1 | flinkywood | 219235 | ||
John, that's a great point I hadn't considered. Good call. Yet I do think that the two instances are distinct insofar as conspiracy to commit murder is distinct from a crime of passion. In the case of the Adulteress the Pharisees hoped to trick Jesus into his self-undoing either in the eyes of the crowd or at the hands of the Romans. In John 8:58, by contrast, they totally lost their marbles because not only had Jesus just called them children of the devil, he'd also declared himself equal to God. | ||||||
4 | Why was not the man accused of adultery. | John 8:1 | stjohn | 219237 | ||
It looks like you may be fishing now, Colin. And it still calls for Speculation that Scripture does not support. By the way, the King James is not 'alone' as you say, in stating they were convicted in their conscience. Young's Literal Translation, Webester's Bible, Hebrew Names Version, Third Millennium, World English, and, The Bible in Basic English. All have it pretty much the same as the two Strong's versions, and of course our host's Amplified version. That makes nine in all, and I don't have them all by any means. So the strong's versions are hardly alone, and none of the nine support your idea but do indeed state something else, nor can we find this Speculative conclusion in any of the others. If it is there, then show us in the Scriptures please? What is your view of Sola Scriptura? |
||||||
5 | Why was not the man accused of adultery. | John 8:1 | flinkywood | 219239 | ||
If scripture says it, I stand corrected and withdraw my speculation. | ||||||
6 | Why was not the man accused of adultery. | John 8:1 | stjohn | 219240 | ||
Very gracious Colin. Thank you! By the way, crow ain't all that bad, I've had it many times in my short worthless life. John |
||||||