We have added a new table of contents and a linked index to our online inhouse commentary on John 8:1-11!


It has several new features and is easier to navigate and read! All new format:


Taken in Adultery - but Whose? <-- Click Here!


Make sure you download this page and save it for sharing and viewing!


Peace,

Nazaroo

POWELL:
So, Nazaroo, will you summarize your 2 or 3 main points?

If Jesus didn't judge her to have committed adultery then why did he tell her to sin no more?

John Powell

Like many people in the New Testament, the woman taken in adultery was not a random character, but a person who's life and situation were used by the Lord for far deeper and greater purposes than the immediate needs of the moment.

The woman is a typology of Israel also. As such, it is no coincidence that Jesus did not forgive her or pronounce her forgiven, but instead put her on probation with a warning. She showed no sign of repentance, and did not come before Jesus of her own free will, but was brought under the Law for the crime of Adultery.

As it happens, the kingdom of Judaea was given 40 years to think again, and repent. In the end, Jerusalem was burnt to the ground and overrun by the Gentiles in 73 A.D.

This is a clear case of typology and prophecy fulfilled.

But we can learn more from the incident than mere prophecy.

As it happens, Jesus was acknowledged as LORD and crowned High Priest by His enemies, without His even lifting a finger! (Yet He chose to use his finger anyway to fulfill Numbers ch.5).
This is the truly miraculous aspect of John 8:1-11. The Law was set up a thousand years previously in such a way as to identify and crown the Messiah. And this incident is a critically important fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy concerning the Messiah and the Law.

Check the details in the link above.

Peace
Nazaroo

If Jesus didn't judge her to have committed adultery then why did he tell her to sin no more?

The message 'Sin no more' obviously applies to every Christian or God seeker who would approach the Lord asking for mercy and forgiveness. Repentance, involving abstinence, is an essential ingredient of true salvation and Spiritual regeneration.

There is no doubt that the woman was guilty of various, perhaps many sins, some even grevous. There is nothing here however, to convict her specifically of the actual adultery she is being accused of here by the Pharisees.

The fact is, she may very well have committed multiple adulteries in the past, giving her the reputation, and perhaps even the unrepentant behaviour for which God allowed her to be delivered into the hands of these wicked men in the first place.

This by no means implies that the Pharisees were telling the truth about this particular "adultery". John in the narrative acknowledges an 'adultery' had taken place, but he condemns no one, certainly not the woman.

The Pharisees on the other hand, accuse the woman specifically, yet cannot come forward being free of the crime to testify. This is more than just suspicious, but indicates a far more heineous and evil crime is taking place at the very moment, namely the frame-up and murder of an unfortunate sinner for the purpose of scandalizing and discrediting the Messiah.

This wickedness far outstrips the mere crime of adultery, even if the woman was guilty of some infraction. The Pharisees and elders and religious leaders of the day were guilty of a far greater sin (see Jesus' comments at the trial before Pilate!), and reaped the consequences.

POWELL:
You don't seem to be listening well enough so let me ask a couple of more direct questions.

Did John condemn the woman?

Did Jesus judge the woman?

It's my guess that the writer included this story of the woman taken in adultery partly because of poetic O.T. passages that inspired him, not because it was a historical event he was narrating. In other words, he made it up. It's no more a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy than if Matthew were to make up a story of Jesus stunt-riding a pair of donkeys.

John Powell

Originally posted by Nazaroo

Like many people in the New Testament, the woman taken in adultery was not a random character, but a person who's life and situation were used by the Lord for far deeper and greater purposes than the immediate needs of the moment.

The woman is a typology of Israel also. As such, it is no coincidence that Jesus did not forgive her or pronounce her forgiven, but instead put her on probation with a warning. She showed no sign of repentance, and did not come before Jesus of her own free will, but was brought under the Law for the crime of Adultery.

Hi Nazaroo,

Israel (and Judah) are often in the OT likened to an adulterous woman, so you might be right here. But how do the scribes and Pharisees fit in? Do they represent themselves or someone else judging Israel?


- FreezBee

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
You don't seem to be listening well enough so let me ask a couple of more direct questions.

Did John condemn the woman?

I have answered each question you have posed directly. I suggested you read my commentary. Since that wasn't done, here are the first six lines from it:

John in the narrative, says 'taken in an adultery':
(Greek: - en moiceia kateilhmmenhn )

But the Pharisees say, "committing adultery"(!):
(Greek: - ep autofwrw moiceuomenhn )

Both agree that an adultery has taken place; but John, guided by the Holy Spirit, condemns no one. (Matt 7:1)

The Pharisees, on the other hand, accuse the woman.
(Acts 10:28)

That should explain my position on your Question 1 above.

Did Jesus judge the woman?

No.
Literally, the Greek has Jesus say, "Neither do I judge you." (Jn 8:11)

It's my guess that the writer included this story of the woman taken in adultery partly because of poetic O.T. passages that inspired him, not because it was a historical event he was narrating. In other words, he made it up. It's no more a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy than if Matthew were to make up a story of Jesus stunt-riding a pair of donkeys.

John Powell

Your guess is unfortunate, and your comparison appears nonsequitous.


There is nothing to draw a parallel between the case of Matthew and the two donkeys, and the Pericope de Adultera.

The Matthew case is in dispute, and appears to be a case of poor translation from an Aramaic or Hebrew version of the story into Greek, whether by the author or translator/ compiler of Greek Matthew. Whoever's boner it is, it is largely irrelevant, since Greek Matthew is just a late church re-arrangement of Luke with some edits and substitutions to make it acceptable to the authorities (public reading) and appropriate for liturgical purposes (church worship).

Since we have Luke (the original), who needs Matthew?


The case of the Pericope de Adultera is completely different. Whether it is an eyewitness account incorporated into the Gospel by the author or a redactor (John the Evangelist/Lazarus or later editor) or as you claim, a work of complete fiction (presumably this cannot distinguish the passage from the rest of John in your view anyway...) it is plainly a work of genius, easily of the same caliber as the rest of the Gospel, or a modern work like "The Prophet" by Kalil Gibran.

How then can the two cases be compared? One is an apparent mistake or misunderstanding, and the other a brilliant piece of prose.

I just can't follow you at all.

Nazaroo.

Originally posted by FreezBee

Hi Nazaroo,

Israel (and Judah) are often in the OT likened to an adulterous woman, so you might be right here. But how do the scribes and Pharisees fit in? Do they represent themselves or someone else judging Israel?


- FreezBee

Oh FreezBee, How do I love thee? Let me count the ways...

I am not the least bit fooled by your satanic foibles. I think of you often when I am posting on www.christianforums.com. I keep you in my prayers.

I suggest you become a devoted and loyal Christian soon. Armageddon is obviously a lot closer than most are prepared to believe.

The real satanists in control of the US govt. and international banks are about to turn the USA into a police state, while launching a 'limited' nuclear attack upon Iran and then Korea, China and the former Soviet Union. This will galvanize the whole world against the West.

The Russians will launch their ICBMs and completely devastate North America, plunging the world into utter darkness.

You have the Light with you a little longer.
While you have the Light,
Believe in the Light,
that you may become children of Light.,
before the darkness overcomes you.

(Jn 12:35-36)


Peace,
Nazaroo

Originally posted by Nazaroo

Oh FreezBee, How do I love thee? Let me count the ways...

I am not the least bit fooled by your satanic foibles. I think of you often when I am posting on www.christianforums.com. I keep you in my prayers.

Long time, no see, Nazaroo -- you are right, I am not really a Satanist, but considering what counts as Christian around here, ...

Originally posted by Nazaroo

I suggest you become a devoted and loyal Christian soon. Armageddon is obviously a lot closer than most are prepared to believe.

You know that I believe that Armageddon comes the day we run out out fermented grape juice. That'll be the day of horror

Originally posted by Nazaroo

The real satanists in control of the US govt. and international banks are about to turn the USA into a police state, while launching a 'limited' nuclear attack upon Iran and then Korea, China and the former Soviet Union. This will galvanize the whole world against the West.

Maybe you should stick to Biblical analyses and leave the political ones to someone else?

Originally posted by Nazaroo

The Russians will launch their ICBMs and completely devastate North America, plunging the world into utter darkness.

Don't forget, I'm a European

Originally posted by Nazaroo

You have the Light with you a little longer.
While you have the Light,
Believe in the Light,
that you may become children of Light.,
before the darkness overcomes you.

(Jn 12:35-36)


Peace,
Nazaroo

But beyond the darkness there is another light, isn't there?


Shalom,
FreezBee

POWELL:
You don't seem to be listening well enough so let me ask a couple of more direct questions.

Did John condemn the woman?

NAZAROO:
I have answered each question you have posed directly. I suggested you read my commentary. Since that wasn't done, here are the first six lines from it:

NAZAROO'S COMMENTARY:
John in the narrative, says 'taken in an adultery':
(Greek: - en moiceia kateilhmmenhn )

But the Pharisees say, "committing adultery"(!):
(Greek: - ep autofwrw moiceuomenhn )

Both agree that an adultery has taken place; but John, guided by the Holy Spirit, condemns no one. (Matt 7:1)

The Pharisees, on the other hand, accuse the woman.
(Acts 10:28)

That should explain my position on your Question 1 above.

POWELL:
Thank you.

American Heritage Dictionary:
Condemn
tr.v.
1. To express strong disapproval of: condemned the needless waste of food.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condemn

POWELL:
So, is it your position that John did not express strong disapproval of the woman taken in adultery? Do you think he expressed approval or only weak disapproval of her?

American Heritage Dictionary:
Accuse
v. tr.
To charge with a shortcoming or error.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accuse

POWELL:
So, is it your position that John did not make a written charge of wrongdoing against the woman?

POWELL:
Did Jesus judge the woman?

NAZAROO:
No.
Literally, the Greek has Jesus say, "Neither do I judge you." (Jn 8:11)

POWELL:
Thank you.

American Heritage Dictionary:
Judge
v. tr.
1. To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Judge

POWELL:
So, is it your position that Jesus did not form an opinion or estimation of her after careful consideration?

POWELL:
It's my guess that the writer included this story of the woman taken in adultery partly because of poetic O.T. passages that inspired him, not because it was a historical event he was narrating. In other words, he made it up. It's no more a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy than if Matthew were to make up a story of Jesus stunt-riding a pair of donkeys.

NAZAROO:
Your guess is unfortunate, and your comparison appears nonsequitous.

There is nothing to draw a parallel between the case of Matthew and the two donkeys, and the Pericope de Adultera.

POWELL:
The parallel is that IMO writers like John and Matthew made up stuff to put in their gospels based on what inspired them from the O.T.

NAZAROO:
The Matthew case is in dispute, and appears to be a case of poor translation from an Aramaic or Hebrew version of the story into Greek, whether by the author or translator/ compiler of Greek Matthew. Whoever's boner it is, it is largely irrelevant, since Greek Matthew is just a late church re-arrangement of Luke with some edits and substitutions to make it acceptable to the authorities (public reading) and appropriate for liturgical purposes (church worship).

Since we have Luke (the original), who needs Matthew?

POWELL:
Since we have Mark (the earliest of the four gospels) who needs Matthew, Luke, or John?

NAZAROO:
The case of the Pericope de Adultera is completely different. Whether it is an eyewitness account incorporated into the Gospel by the author or a redactor (John the Evangelist/Lazarus or later editor) or as you claim, a work of complete fiction (presumably this cannot distinguish the passage from the rest of John in your view anyway...) it is plainly a work of genius, easily of the same caliber as the rest of the Gospel, or a modern work like "The Prophet" by Kalil Gibran.

POWELL:
I am not criticizing the artistry of the writer of John. That writing appears more artistic than the other three gospels. Shakespeare is considered by many to be the greatest English writer, but that doesn't make Romeo a historical character.

NAZAROO:
How then can the two cases be compared? One is an apparent mistake or misunderstanding, and the other a brilliant piece of prose.

I just can't follow you at all.

Nazaroo.

POWELL:
I'm not challenging the brilliance of the prose, how he wove the metaphor of Israel as the adulterous wife of God into a modern (to him) setting of a woman taken in adultery presented before the Master. What I'm criticizing is concluding that the story represents historical fact, a fulfillment of O.T. prophecy.

John Powell

POWELL:
So, is it your position that John did not express strong disapproval of the woman taken in adultery? Do you think he expressed approval or only weak disapproval of her?


So, is it your position that John did not make a written charge of wrongdoing against the woman?

I think based upon John's careful choice of words in the Greek,
that he maintained absolute neutrality on the question of the woman's status.

John did not make any written charge of wrongdoing against the woman. That is correct.

So, is it your position that Jesus did not form an opinion or estimation of her after careful consideration?

No. In my view it is quite clear that Jesus took an entirely different position than John.

While upholding both the letter and Spirit of the Law, Jesus postponed a trial on the basis of lack of witnesses, a requirement for any legal proceeding to carry forward.

The Jesus as portrayed by John had supernatural knowledge. This is indicated in many places in the Gospel, both in the narrative and in claims made by Jesus as recorded by John.

From John's perspective, Jesus would not need to 'form an opinion or estimation', except in the sense that God's approval and reaction to us is mediated by our reception and cooperation with Him. Thus while Jesus' attitude toward the woman was changable, based upon her choices and responses, His knowledge was not.

For Jesus as portrayed by John then, there was no need for any time element, or 'careful consideration'. Jesus knew all things, past present and future, including those that are not predestined, although this is a special subtlety beyond the scope of our discussion here.

Although John was constrained by the Spirit to remain neutral in his own personal attitude toward the woman, he was nonetheless free to report honestly the response of Jesus, and assert His omniscience. Thus John in the narrative stays neutral, while freely reporting Jesus' statements, which could potentially be interpreted as a 'judgement' regarding the woman by the reader.

To get back to your question now that the essential background has been provided from my translation of the Greek text, I would say this:

It is my position that Jesus indeed DID have (not form) an opinion regarding the woman. She was guilty of adultery, and idolatry. He placed her on probation, because He knew she was guilty of serious sin. He offered her future forgiveness through the path of repentance.

Her response to Jesus' offer is not recorded in John's Gospel, (on purpose, because of her function as a typology of Judaea).

However, in my view the woman was a real historical person. She was Queen Herodias' daughter, she was well known to the Pharisees, and did in fact repent, as recorded by Luke elsewhere.

POWELL:
So, is it your position that John did not express strong disapproval of the woman taken in adultery? Do you think he expressed approval or only weak disapproval of her?

So, is it your position that John did not make a written charge of wrongdoing against the woman?

NAZAROO:
I think based upon John's careful choice of words in the Greek, that he maintained absolute neutrality on the question of the woman's status.

POWELL:
So, John expressed no opinion on whether the woman was taken in adultery and expressed no opinion on whether her status was one of a woman taken in adultery?

NAZAROO:
John did not make any written charge of wrongdoing against the woman. That is correct.

POWELL:
So, it's your understanding that in the view of John, being taken in adultery was not wrong? Sinning was not wrong?

POWELL:
So, is it your position that Jesus did not form an opinion or estimation of her after careful consideration?

NAZAROO:
No. In my view it is quite clear that Jesus took an entirely different position than John.

While upholding both the letter and Spirit of the Law, Jesus postponed a trial on the basis of lack of witnesses, a requirement for any legal proceeding to carry forward.

POWELL:
Couldn't Jesus serve as an all-knowing witness?

NAZAROO:
The Jesus as portrayed by John had supernatural knowledge. This is indicated in many places in the Gospel, both in the narrative and in claims made by Jesus as recorded by John.

From John's perspective, Jesus would not need to 'form an opinion or estimation', except in the sense that God's approval and reaction to us is mediated by our reception and cooperation with Him. Thus while Jesus' attitude toward the woman was changable, based upon her choices and responses, His knowledge was not.

POWELL:
How was Jesus to change his attitude if he already knew what her choices and responses would be and what his attitude would be to those choices and responses?

NAZAROO:
For Jesus as portrayed by John then, there was no need for any time element, or 'careful consideration'. Jesus knew all things, past present and future, including those that are not predestined, although this is a special subtlety beyond the scope of our discussion here.

POWELL:
So, were there future things that Jesus didn't know? Does Jesus know whether I'm going to have eggs for breakfast tomorrow?

NAZAROO:
Although John was constrained by the Spirit to remain neutral in his own personal attitude toward the woman, he was nonetheless free to report honestly the response of Jesus, and assert His omniscience. Thus John in the narrative stays neutral, while freely reporting Jesus' statements, which could potentially be interpreted as a 'judgement' regarding the woman by the reader.

To get back to your question now that the essential background has been provided from my translation of the Greek text, I would say this:

It is my position that Jesus indeed DID have (not form) an opinion regarding the woman. She was guilty of adultery, and idolatry. He placed her on probation, because He knew she was guilty of serious sin. He offered her future forgiveness through the path of repentance.

POWELL:
Didn't Jesus know whether or not she would repent?

Ok, so Jesus didn't judge her because to judge implies a time element of deliberation. But, since Jesus was omniscient he didn't need any time to deliberate.

Then how will Jesus judge us in the after-Earth life?

NAZAROO:
Her response to Jesus' offer is not recorded in John's Gospel, (on purpose, because of her function as a typology of Judaea).

However, in my view the woman was a real historical person. She was Queen Herodias' daughter, she was well known to the Pharisees, and did in fact repent, as recorded by Luke elsewhere.

POWELL:
I see. Did Jesus know she was going to repent?

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
...
POWELL:
So, it's your understanding that in the view of John, being taken in adultery was not wrong? Sinning was not wrong?

These are two different questions. You are doing the same thing that most modern readers do. They assume that being taken in adultery automatically means you are guilty of a sin. This is incorrect, and a moment's reflection shows this.

We don't blame the victim of a rape, and neither does the Law of God. If a man rapes a married woman, he has committed both a rape AND an adultery. This does not mean the woman has 'committed' adultery in the sense that she is guilty of the sin of committing adultery. Instead, the perpetrator, the rapist, is guilty of rape and adultery, and incurs the death penalty.

It is normal and natural to speak of the woman in that case as being taken or found in an adultery, but to know also that she is not guilty of committing adultery.

POWELL:
Couldn't Jesus serve as an all-knowing witness?

Certainly, but the Law of God requires TWO witnesses.

This may be a technicality, since Jesus and God the Father are considered two separate persons. However, the O.T. Law taken in its basic sense as a set of instructions for men to carry out and fulfill requires two human witnesses.

Secondly, it is probably not appropriate for a judge to also be a witness. This is a well-recognized principle in Law, that of impartiality. Jesus might be accused of bias if He served as both judge and witness, and this is not allowed in human courts normally.

POWELL:
How was Jesus to change his attitude if he already knew what her choices and responses would be and what his attitude would be to those choices and responses?

\
Again, I think the key here is to differentiate between knowledge of the future, and appropriate actions in time. As the Holy Scripture says, to everything there is a season, an appropriate timing.

That is, Jesus walked and talked and acted in time, however, this does not preclude omniscence.

POWELL:
So, were there future things that Jesus didn't know? Does Jesus know whether I'm going to have eggs for breakfast tomorrow?

Yes, Jesus knows what you are going to have for breakfast tommorrow. Count on it.

POWELL:
Didn't Jesus know whether or not she would repent?

Omniscience does not necessarily imply utter predestination, or interference with limited freewill.

Ok, so Jesus didn't judge her because to judge implies a time element of deliberation. But, since Jesus was omniscient he didn't need any time to deliberate.

Then how will Jesus judge us in the after-Earth life?

By appointing a time to do so, and carrying out the consequences of His judgement.

POWELL:
I see. Did Jesus know she was going to repent?

John Powell

A better way of phrasing this would be to say that Jesus knew she would repent IF He did His part in entering into her world and enlightening her.

Peace,
Nazaroo

POWELL:
So, it's your understanding that in the view of John, being taken in adultery was not wrong? Sinning was not wrong?

NAZAROO:
These are two different questions. You are doing the same thing that most modern readers do. They assume that being taken in adultery automatically means you are guilty of a sin. This is incorrect, and a moment's reflection shows this.

We don't blame the victim of a rape, and neither does the Law of God. If a man rapes a married woman, he has committed both a rape AND an adultery. This does not mean the woman has 'committed' adultery in the sense that she is guilty of the sin of committing adultery. Instead, the perpetrator, the rapist, is guilty of rape and adultery, and incurs the death penalty.

It is normal and natural to speak of the woman in that case as being taken or found in an adultery, but to know also that she is not guilty of committing adultery.

POWELL:
Your characterization doesn't look normal to me. Rather, it looks to me like John wanted his readers to understand that the woman committed adultery. In fact, she was caught in the act.

Since you don't agree: where in his language did John clarify for his readers that she had been raped and so didn't commit adultery rather than that the sex was voluntary and so she committed adultery?

Also, if Jesus didn't think she sinned in this adultery matter (because it was rape) then why did he tell her to sin no more?

POWELL:
Couldn't Jesus serve as an all-knowing witness?

NAZAROO:
Certainly, but the Law of God requires TWO witnesses.

POWELL:
So, Jesus could bring dad and his buddy HS along.

NAZAROO:
This may be a technicality, since Jesus and God the Father are considered two separate persons. However, the O.T. Law taken in its basic sense as a set of instructions for men to carry out and fulfill requires two human witnesses.

POWELL:
I think that the judges would make an exception if Jesus were to display sufficient divine power for them. Don't you?

NAZAROO:
Secondly, it is probably not appropriate for a judge to also be a witness. This is a well-recognized principle in Law, that of impartiality. Jesus might be accused of bias if He served as both judge and witness, and this is not allowed in human courts normally.

POWELL:
Yes, but this wouldn't be normal, having God in the court, now would it?

POWELL:
How was Jesus to change his attitude if he already knew what her choices and responses would be and what his attitude would be to those choices and responses?

NAZAROO:
Again, I think the key here is to differentiate between knowledge of the future, and appropriate actions in time. As the Holy Scripture says, to everything there is a season, an appropriate timing.

That is, Jesus walked and talked and acted in time, however, this does not preclude omniscence.

POWELL:
So, were there future things that Jesus didn't know? Does Jesus know whether I'm going to have eggs for breakfast tomorrow?

NAZAROO:
Yes, Jesus knows what you are going to have for breakfast tommorrow. Count on it.

POWELL:
What if he told me what I was going to eat (let's say "eggs")? Could I then avoid eggs or would any efforts to do otherwise be futile?

POWELL:
Didn't Jesus know whether or not she would repent?

NAZAROO:
Omniscience does not necessarily imply utter predestination, or interference with limited freewill.

POWELL:
Ok, so Jesus didn't judge her because to judge implies a time element of deliberation. But, since Jesus was omniscient he didn't need any time to deliberate.

Then how will Jesus judge us in the after-Earth life?

NAZAROO:
By appointing a time to do so, and carrying out the consequences of His judgement.

POWELL:
Well, appointing when the judgment will occur is not the same as taking time to deliberate. During the time interval Jesus could be thinking and doing other things than deliberating on their fate.

You're arguing that Jesus didn't judge her because he didn't take any time to deliberate. If the final judgment won't include any time for deliberation then doesn't that suggest that Jesus won't judge us either?

POWELL:
I see. Did Jesus know she was going to repent?

NAZAROO:
A better way of phrasing this would be to say that Jesus knew she would repent IF He did His part in entering into her world and enlightening her.

Peace,
Nazaroo

POWELL:
So, what if he did his part in entering into her world and enlightening her and then told her that she will repent? Could she then do otherwise or would her efforts to do otherwise be futile?

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
Your characterization doesn't look normal to me. Rather, it looks to me like John wanted his readers to understand that the woman committed adultery. In fact, she was caught in the act.

Since you don't agree: where in his language did John clarify for his readers that she had been raped and so didn't commit adultery rather than that the sex was voluntary and so she committed adultery?

Again, you keep making the same mistake, that of confusing what John said, with what the PHARISEES said. It was the PHARISEES who said she was "caught in the act". (Jn 8:4 - DIALOGUE)

But they could produce no credible witnesses for their claim.

John merely notes the obvious in his narrative introduction: an adultery was committed by someone.

What are the implications of John's conscious variation from the testimony of the Pharisees? That an adultery was committed, and it was also a rape.

Also, if Jesus didn't think she sinned in this adultery matter (because it was rape) then why did he tell her to sin no more?

Again, its a no-brainer. She was a sinner, probably a habitual one. One of her indescretions gave her a bad reputation and since the Pharisees had already judged her to be guilty themselves, they felt free to abuse her in any way they chose. After all, according to them she should be dead already.

Ass-raping her was a freebie for them. Not that these creeps really believed in the Law of God or even the existance of God: (Jn 7:19, Jn 5:46 etc.)

POWELL:
So, Jesus could bring dad and his buddy HS along.

I think that the judges would make an exception if Jesus were to display sufficient divine power for them. Don't you?

He did. They rejected His signs, such as opening the eyes of the blind and raising the dead.

POWELL:
What if he told me what I was going to eat (let's say "eggs")? Could I then avoid eggs or would any efforts to do otherwise be futile?

Everything you can possibly do in an attempt to thwart or dishonour God is futile. count on it.

POWELL:
Well, appointing when the judgment will occur is not the same as taking time to deliberate. During the time interval Jesus could be thinking and doing other things than deliberating on their fate.

You're arguing that Jesus didn't judge her because he didn't take any time to deliberate. If the final judgment won't include any time for deliberation then doesn't that suggest that Jesus won't judge us either?

There is a game of semantics involved in substituting various meanings for 'judge' without acknowledging the act.

It is plain and reasonable to say that Jesus did not judge the woman, because the normal meaning for this expression implies he would hold a trial, hear witnesses, make a decision, and carry out a sentence.

The court of God however, is not like the trial of O.J. Simpson. God is free to charge the same person again, if changes in circumstance, or question of fact are brought to light.

Even in the Court of Moses, a man could be re-tried. The 'double-jeopardy' rules of the USA are a recent innovation, and should not be assumed to be 'approved by God'.

We observe only that Jesus postponed her trial. We have not said she will not be judged, or that there is no appointed Day of Judgement.

So, what if he did his part in entering into her world and enlightening her and then told her that she will repent? Could she then do otherwise or would her efforts to do otherwise be futile?

John Powell

Any efforts to throw away your own salvation are by definition futile. If you fail, your effort was futile. If you succeed, your effort is truly futile.

The question is a philosophical absurdity. Would a panicking drowning man refuse a lifesaving floatation device? No. Even against his own will he would cling to it.

As the story in Luke 7:36-50 illustrates (and in this case we are reading a recorded historical incident), people who are truly saved by the Lord don't refuse salvation, they are grateful for it.

Nonetheless, salvation comes through repentance. To expect it to come in any other way is folly. (John 10:1, 10:9)

Peace,
Nazaroo

POWELL:
Your characterization doesn't look normal to me. Rather, it looks to me like John wanted his readers to understand that the woman committed adultery. In fact, she was caught in the act.

Since you don't agree: where in his language did John clarify for his readers that she had been raped and so didn't commit adultery rather than that the sex was voluntary and so she committed adultery?

NAZAROO:
Again, you keep making the same mistake, that of confusing what John said, with what the PHARISEES said. It was the PHARISEES who said she was "caught in the act". (Jn 8:4 -DIALOGUE)

POWELL:
I understand that. What you don't seem to understand is that's one way a narrator tells his readers something like that she was caught in the act: by putting the words into his characters. So he narrates "taken in adultery" and has his characters point out it's not just that she had done it some time in the past, but they caught her in the act. I don't see anything there that gives good reason to think John did NOT mean she was caught in the act of committing adultery but that she was caught in the act of being raped. If John meant for his readers to understand those men were lying about her being caught in the act of committing adultery then he needed to clarify that. That Jesus did not throw stones at her or encourage the others to do so, isn't enough.

NAZAROO:
But they could produce no credible witnesses for their claim.

POWELL:
The credible witnesses decided not to testify. I bet if Jesus had encouraged them then they would have.

NAZAROO:
John merely notes the obvious in his narrative introduction: an adultery was committed by someone.

POWELL:
I think you're misreading the plain language of the author. There's nothing about the man there. The woman is the focus of the adultery. If the issue was one of rape then John needed to clarify that.

NAZAROO:
What are the implications of John's conscious variation from the testimony of the Pharisees? That an adultery was committed, and it was also a rape.

POWELL:
I disagree. I see John narrating that she had committed adultery, but for his purpose to point out that in this case she was caught in the act, making the adultery accusation even more solid, he put that language into the mouths of his speakers. It's not required that a writer point out that his speakers are being truthful about ordinary things unless other elements in the story indicate probably they aren't.

POWELL:
Also, if Jesus didn't think she sinned in this adultery matter (because it was rape) then why did he tell her to sin no more?

NAZAROO:
Again, its a no-brainer. She was a sinner, probably a habitual one. One of her indescretions gave her a bad reputation and since the Pharisees had already judged her to be guilty themselves, they felt free to abuse her in any way they chose. After all, according to them she should be dead already.

Ass-raping her was a freebie for them. Not that these creeps really believed in the Law of God or even the existance of God: (Jn 7:19,Jn 5:46etc.)

POWELL:
Huh? That language is too explicit for this forum.

POWELL:
So, Jesus could bring dad and his buddy HS along.

I think that the judges would make an exception if Jesus were to display sufficient divine power for them. Don't you?

NAZAROO:
He did. They rejected His signs, such as opening the eyes of the blind and raising the dead.

POWELL:
The narrative has him doing that, but it's not likely that's what actually happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Normal people would believe if such things were accomplished. The Jews of the N.T. weren't real people. They were absurd inventions: people who see miracles yet refuse to believe. It's a common mistaken claim by apologists that even if God were to come to Earth and do great miracles then atheists yet would not believe. That's absurd.

So again, if Jesus had actually performed great miracles in front of the judges such as opening the eyes of the blind, raising the dead, and reading their minds in detail then I bet they would allow him to be a single witness.

POWELL:
What if he told me what I was going to eat (let's say "eggs")? Could I then avoid eggs or would any efforts to do otherwise be futile?

NAZAROO:
Everything you can possibly do in an attempt to thwart or dishonour God is futile. count on it.

POWELL:
So, God says "You'll have eggs for breakfast tomorrow" and I throw all the eggs in the house away. So, am I compelled to go get some more or do eggs miraculously appear in my mouth in the morning or what?

POWELL:
Well, appointing when the judgment will occur is not the same as taking time to deliberate. During the time interval Jesus could be thinking and doing other things than deliberating on their fate.

You're arguing that Jesus didn't judge her because he didn't take any time to deliberate. If the final judgment won't include any time for deliberation then doesn't that suggest that Jesus won't judge us either?

NAZAROO:
There is a game of semantics involved in substituting various meanings for 'judge' without acknowledging the act.

POWELL:
I'm trying to establish that Jesus was wrong when he said he didn't judge her. To do that I need to clarify what those words mean. For my opponent to argue they mean whatever they need to mean so Jesus was right could, if used for everyone, vindicate every liar.

NAZAROO:
It is plain and reasonable to say that Jesus did not judge the woman, because the normal meaning for this expression implies he would hold a trial, hear witnesses, make a decision, and carry out a sentence.

POWELL:
Thank you for that response. Your reasoning appears to be motivated by desperation to defend Jesus.

Let's reason about it. So, when the Bible says "judge not that ye be not judged" does it mean "don't hold a trial, hear witnesses, make a decision, and carry out a sentence that such a thing not happen to you"? If someone is criticized for being judgmental can they properly defend themselves by saying "I'm just saying that she should do everything humanly possible to be as attractive as she can be at every moment of her life. I'm not holding a trial, hearing witnesses, making a decision, and carrying out a sentence, so I'm not judging her."

Let me point out a logical principle. "If p then q" does not imply "if not p then not q".

If your situation satisfies one of the definitions of a word (such as judge) then you are dictionary-justified to claim something like "I judge you." If p then q.

On the other hand, that you don't satisfy ONE of the secondary definitions of word does NOT dictionary-justify you to claim "I don't judge you." It would need to be the primary definition. If Jesus did not judge her in the secondary, formal sense of holding a trial, hearing witnesses, etc. but he did judge her in the primary, ordinary sense of forming an opinion then he judged her. If he's going to say "I don't judge you" then he needs to clarify what he means with something like "I don't formally judge you" or technically he's wrong since the primary definition of "to judge" isn't restricted to the courtroom.

Perhaps you should argue that Jesus was speaking metaphorically.

NAZAROO:
The court of God however, is not like the trial of O.J. Simpson. God is free to charge the same person again, if changes in circumstance, or question of fact are brought to light.

Even in the Court of Moses, a man could be re-tried. The 'double-jeopardy' rules of the USA are a recent innovation, and should not be assumed to be 'approved by God'.

POWELL:
I prophesy that in the future some Christian apologists will imagine God relying on some kind of principle avoiding double-jeopardy and then will argue that's what God does. God, you see, is what people imagine. God evolves as society changes. The God of the Christians was not so focussed on the extermination of neighbors as the God of the earlier Jews. That's because the Christians weren't quite so genocidal.

NAZAROO:
We observe only that Jesus postponed her trial. We have not said she will not be judged, or that there is no appointed Day of Judgement.

POWELL:
So, Jesus will judge her in the future because there will be all that formal stuff such as holding a trial, calling witnesses, etc. (at least the parts that are needed given God's omniscience).

So, the Pharisees didn't judge the woman to be an adulteress either, because they didn't hold a trial, call witnesses, etc. Is that your position?

POWELL:
So, what if he did his part in entering into her world and enlightening her and then told her that she will repent? Could she then do otherwise or would her efforts to do otherwise be futile?

NAZAROO:
Any efforts to throw away your own salvation are by definition futile. If you fail, your effort was futile. If you succeed, your effort is truly futile.

POWELL:
No they aren't "by definition futile." Futile is associated with the goal in mind, regardless of the goal's morality.

NAZAROO:
The question is a philosophical absurdity. Would a panicking drowning man refuse a lifesaving floatation device? No. Even against his own will he would cling to it.

POWELL:
What if the man had been told by his evil alien captors that if he used the device to save his own life when they tossed him into the dangerous waters then the aliens would rape and torture and kill all his children? Might he then refuse to use the device despite his desperation or would self-preservation be too strong?

People have a choice to harm themselves. It's not a philosophical absurdity.

NAZAROO:
As the story in Luke 7:36-50illustrates (and in this case we are reading a recorded historical incident), people who are truly saved by the Lord don't refuse salvation, they are grateful for it.

POWELL:
That elsewhere some people don't refuse and are saved and are grateful does not imply that everyone would.

NAZAROO:
Nonetheless, salvation comes through repentance. To expect it to come in any other way is folly. (John 10:1, 10:9)

Peace,
Nazaroo

POWELL:
Was Jesus saved? Did it come through repentance? Is it folly for a Christian to expect Jesus to be saved without repentance?

John Powell