Stoning to death in the OT and the situation now after the NT.

[Darth Ovious]

High context society. Not everything needs to be written down. For example, when Jesus says "let he who is without sin" the audience would have known He was referencing Mosaic law, not asking for a person completely without sin.

You are correct, but I was going along the maxim of if it was not worth remembering then it wasn't worth writing down sort of thinking.

[Littlejoe]

It's not irrelevant, or moot, in my (or DE's) eyes, because His lack of authority is one side of the trap. I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because discussion isn't getting us anywhere.

It's relevant to the trap. I give you that. If we grant Jesus (the man) Governor of Judea for the day authority. Do you believe He makes a different decision?

My point is, Jesus did not condone the stoning of the woman. If the reason He doesn't is because of the trap, then you can make the case that I'm wrong...but I submit, with authority, Jesus would have done the exact same thing, found a way to forgive the woman and not condemn her to death. If you disagree then we do indeed need to agree to disagree. So, yes or no, do you think Jesus does something different if He had authority to do so?

[Littlejoe]

Just because the point of the story isn't about his authority does not mean it's moot.

Of course it matters. Jesus could not order an execution without defying the Romans. That's why they brought an adulterous woman to him, to get him to either anger the Romans by having her executed or violate Mosaic law. This way no matter what Jesus did He'd lose face with somebody.

Yes, you have answered with the facts of the story and thereby continued to avoid the question. Yes or no, IF Jesus has all the authority, does he do something different?

[One Bad Pig]

It's relevant to the trap. I give you that. If we grant Jesus (the man) Governor of Judea for the day authority. Do you believe He makes a different decision?

My point is, Jesus did not condone the stoning of the woman. If the reason He doesn't is because of the trap, then you can make the case that I'm wrong...but I submit, with authority, Jesus would have done the exact same thing, found a way to forgive the woman and not condemn her to death. If you disagree then we do indeed need to agree to disagree. So, yes or no, do you think Jesus does something different if He had authority to do so?

I don't put much stock in hypotheticals. As God, He made the law specifying death by stoning for adultery.

[Obsidian]

My point is, Jesus did not condone the stoning of the woman. If the reason He doesn't is because of the trap, then you can make the case that I'm wrong...but I submit, with authority, Jesus would have done the exact same thing, found a way to forgive the woman and not condemn her to death. If you disagree then we do indeed need to agree to disagree. So, yes or no, do you think Jesus does something different if He had authority to do so?

It depends on whether you think Jesus would have felt justified in defying the Romans. But as Darth Executor said, Jesus rendered this hypothetical irrelevant.

With two witnesses, Moses said to kill her and Caesar said not to kill her. With no witnesses, neither one said to kill her.

[Truthseeker]

With two witnesses, Moses said to kill her and Caesar said not to kill her. With no witnesses, neither one said to kill her.

That looks wrong to me. It seems to say that Jesus' opponents simply picked a woman, whether they knew or not about her sins.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, you have answered with the facts of the story and thereby continued to avoid the question. Yes or no, IF Jesus has all the authority, does he do something different?

Yes. Or rather, probably. It's unclear whether she actually did commit adultery or not.

[Darth Executor]

That looks wrong to me. It seems to say that Jesus' opponents simply picked a woman, whether they knew or not about her sins.

It's possible but the text doesn't say. After all the most likely point was to show up Jesus's prowess in dealing with matters of the law at the expense of the blundering pharisees. Modern audiences focus on the woman's moral failings and side issues like forgiveness because accruing honor isn't a concern for us.

[Littlejoe]

Yes. Or rather, probably. It's unclear whether she actually did commit adultery or not.

Fair enough...I understand your position, I disagree with it, but I understand it. Thanks.

[Obsidian]

That looks wrong to me. It seems to say that Jesus' opponents simply picked a woman, whether they knew or not about her sins.

The text, i.e. the Holy Spirit, specifically says that she committed adultery. But it was never proven with any witnesses. There are cases even today where we know that someone is guilty, yet the charges have to be dropped because the police violated the law in obtaining evidence. In those cases, there are no witnesses who can testify so the person goes free.

[Darth Ovious]

Any thoughts on this video on the issue? They seem to argue that certain things like stoning were part of ceremonial law that no longer applies to us under the new covenant.

[KingsGambit]

Are Christians who support it going to be willing to practically go through with it? The news has come out that Jim Bob Duggar supported capital punishment for incest when he ran for office some years ago. When it comes to his own son, though, he is siding with forgiveness instead.

[Paprika]

Any thoughts on this video on the issue? They seem to argue that certain things like stoning were part of ceremonial law that no longer applies to us under the new covenant.

Leaving aside the point that stoning is clearly not part of ceremonial law, the video is irrelevant as no one here is arguing that we are obliged to follow Mosaic Law.

Rather, since the wise and good God saw fit to institute those punishments for a certain times and place the question is why shouldn't we follow likewise?