A Young Woman Stoned for Adultery

[Picaro]

while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
You are still confused, Picaro. What jewish "theology" was transmitted orally?
I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
put in books------but just to what do YOU refer? The psalms? Genesis?

for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
by "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
be described as an ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
did to blacks they accused of "touching a white woman" Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
a PRACTICE

I'm not in the least bit confused. And your silly point about stonings is irrelevant to anything I've said.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The Jews killed 2000 Palestinians last year. Most of them women and children.

Israel ain't in the business of assassinating innocents. You can keep your Muslim Brotherhood propaganda to yourself.

Hey, guys, even ISRAELI sources admit that was the case.

Here you go, from Haertz- an Israeli publication.

Report finds high civilian death toll during Gaza war - Diplomacy and Defense

The youngest to die was a 4-day-old girl, the oldest a 92-year-old man.
They were among at least 844 Palestinians killed as a result of airstrikes on homes during Israel's summer war with the Islamic militant group, Hamas.
....
According to preliminary U.N. figures, at least 1,483 Palestinian civilians were killed in the war - 66 percent of the overall death toll of 2,205.

Collateral damage is not targeting, dip wad.

 

[Muhammed]

I think I got stoned with a few adulterous women. I'm not telling no names though.

 

[Pogo]

Muslim clerics who are "scholars of Islam" say that stoning is a "prescribed" punishment by Muhammed.

Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Stoning - WikiIslam

>> WikiIslam is an anti-Islamic wiki, describing itself as "[a wiki with] 2500+ critical articles on various areas of Islam based on its own sources, the Qur'an, hadith and Islamic scholars."

It was launched on September 4, 2006, in collaboration with Ali Sina and Faith Freedom International (FFI) who provided the site with server space and exposure. In August 2008, the site was moved out of FFI's server and since then it has been operating independently, remaining unaffiliated with or owned by any organization.

Its criticisms of Islam, its adherents, and its supporters are very sharp, and its outlook on these is consistently negative. << -- RationalWiki
​

 

[Pogo]

The situation in Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
ANYONE. However----beyond that assertion is the FACT that executions
for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
was regarding "execution" FIND A LOOPHOLE. Adultery was not treated
like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED. Read the NT----if
you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there. What happened
to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN? was he
sentenced to death? I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
in fact-----it is a fraud

Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe. The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.

In the third century, the writer of the church order the Didascalia Apostolorum invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians. The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate, while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition, worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
The Woman Caught in Adultery


There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity. Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.
The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research

You are citing the "OPINIONS" of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
interpret the ODYSSEY. -------- More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
by writers that never met jesus. Use your head. I have no doubt that the bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL so what? Your allusion to 'biblical manuscripts" are just
that--------nothing more. You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?

Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it. The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time. Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about. Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.


Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.


BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:

1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.

2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
(snip)
The Authors of the New Testament


If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [5uke 1:1-4]

Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

The Dating of the New Testament


Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.

The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.

while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
You are still confused, Picaro. What jewish "theology" was transmitted orally?
I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
put in books------but just to what do YOU refer? The psalms? Genesis?

for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
by "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
be described as an ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
did to blacks they accused of "touching a white woman" Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
a PRACTICE

Actually, lynching is a pretty fair analogy. A mob, organized to exterminate what it sees as a societal defect, whether it's a black, an adulterer, or whoever has overstepped the bounds of an imaginary social order. The Ku Klux Klan used to beat and whip drunks and adulterers, and in one case I recall pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for "not going to church". So it's very much the same psychology --- "honor" beatings, like "honor" killings, in the Klan's case the "honor" of the community. It was all into that shit, especially trying to set itself up as the defender of the "honor" of white people, particularly white women. It's the same mentality.

But your diversion to the legality of the stoning in the NT, or all those in the OT, is irrelevant, since the point was not the legal status, but the simple fact that it existed in that time --- regardless of its legal status.

Nice try, no cigar.

 

[irosie91]

Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe. The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.

In the third century, the writer of the church order the Didascalia Apostolorum invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians. The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate, while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition, worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
The Woman Caught in Adultery


There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity. Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.
The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research

You are citing the "OPINIONS" of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
interpret the ODYSSEY. -------- More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
by writers that never met jesus. Use your head. I have no doubt that the bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL so what? Your allusion to 'biblical manuscripts" are just
that--------nothing more. You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?

Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it. The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time. Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about. Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.


Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.


BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:

1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.

2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
(snip)
The Authors of the New Testament


If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [5uke 1:1-4]

Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

The Dating of the New Testament


Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.

The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.

while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
You are still confused, Picaro. What jewish "theology" was transmitted orally?
I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
put in books------but just to what do YOU refer? The psalms? Genesis?

for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
by "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
be described as an ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
did to blacks they accused of "touching a white woman" Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
a PRACTICE

Actually, lynching is a pretty fair analogy. A mob, organized to exterminate what it sees as a societal defect, whether it's a black, an adulterer, or whoever has overstepped the bounds of an imaginary social order. The Ku Klux Klan used to beat and whip drunks and adulterers, and in one case I recall pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for "not going to church". So it's very much the same psychology --- "honor" beatings, like "honor" killings, in the Klan's case the "honor" of the community. It was all into that shit, especially trying to set itself up as the defender of the "honor" of white people, particularly white women. It's the same mentality.

But your diversion to the legality of the stoning in the NT, or all those in the OT, is irrelevant, since the point was not the legal status, but the simple fact that it existed in that time --- regardless of its legal status.

Nice try, no cigar.

good point-----a story in the NICEA COUNCIL compiled book aka the NT that is not
at all consistent with jurisprudence or custom of the jews of Judea/Israel during the
putative life-time of Jesus-------gets NO CIGAR. That lynchings were a custom
of the European Christian invaders of the Americas is well documented. There is
no evidence whatsoever that lynchings were a custom of the jews of Judea/Israel
as a response to sexual indiscretion. In fact the actual judicial handling
of such events is EXTENSIVELY documented. That stoning was one of the
methods of execution in jewish jurisprudence is ALSO extensively documented----
but ----the fact is that it was not done for a single event of adultery-----also well
documented. That stoning was and REMAINS a prominent aspect of Islamic
jurisprudence for ANY sexual indiscretion by a woman in Islamic law is also
extensively documented. For the sake of completeness-----I will add that political
assassination -----did happen-----now and then in the period of time under consideration in Judea/Israel ---ie circa the lifetime of Jesus. Stoning is part of
the law of Judaism in ancient times-----albeit rarely actually used. Stoning is a part of Islamic law in current times and often employed

 

[Mertex]

You are citing the "OPINIONS" of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
interpret the ODYSSEY. -------- More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
by writers that never met jesus. Use your head. I have no doubt that the bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL so what? Your allusion to 'biblical manuscripts" are just
that--------nothing more. You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?

Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it. The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time. Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about. Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.


Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.


BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:

1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.

2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
(snip)
The Authors of the New Testament


If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [5uke 1:1-4]

Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

The Dating of the New Testament


Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.

The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.

while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
You are still confused, Picaro. What jewish "theology" was transmitted orally?
I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
put in books------but just to what do YOU refer? The psalms? Genesis?

for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
by "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
be described as an ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
did to blacks they accused of "touching a white woman" Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
a PRACTICE

Actually, lynching is a pretty fair analogy. A mob, organized to exterminate what it sees as a societal defect, whether it's a black, an adulterer, or whoever has overstepped the bounds of an imaginary social order. The Ku Klux Klan used to beat and whip drunks and adulterers, and in one case I recall pulled a (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for "not going to church". So it's very much the same psychology --- "honor" beatings, like "honor" killings, in the Klan's case the "honor" of the community. It was all into that shit, especially trying to set itself up as the defender of the "honor" of white people, particularly white women. It's the same mentality.

But your diversion to the legality of the stoning in the NT, or all those in the OT, is irrelevant, since the point was not the legal status, but the simple fact that it existed in that time --- regardless of its legal status.

Nice try, no cigar.

good point-----a story in the NICEA COUNCIL compiled book aka the NT that is not
at all consistent with jurisprudence or custom of the jews of Judea/Israel during the
putative life-time of Jesus-------gets NO CIGAR. That lynchings were a custom
of the European Christian invaders of the Americas is well documented. There is
no evidence whatsoever that lynchings were a custom of the jews of Judea/Israel
as a response to sexual indiscretion. In fact the actual judicial handling
of such events is EXTENSIVELY documented. That stoning was one of the
methods of execution in jewish jurisprudence is ALSO extensively documented----
but ----the fact is that it was not done for a single event of adultery-----also well
documented. That stoning was and REMAINS a prominent aspect of Islamic
jurisprudence for ANY sexual indiscretion by a woman in Islamic law is also
extensively documented. For the sake of completeness-----I will add that political
assassination -----did happen-----now and then in the period of time under consideration in Judea/Israel ---ie circa the lifetime of Jesus. Stoning is part of
the law of Judaism in ancient times-----albeit rarely actually used. Stoning is a part of Islamic law in current times and often employed

Talking about Johnnys come-lately......325 years later and they're supposed to be more knowledgeable about what went on during Jesus' time than those who actually walked alongside Jesus?

The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈni:kaɪja]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.

 

[Mertex]

The situation in Israel/Judea during the putative life-time of Jesus is WELL DOCUMENTED-------In fact Christian theologians have INSISTED for almost
the past 2000 years that ------the ONLY REASON THAT DA JOOOS did not execute Jesus is because the romans stripped DA JEWISH COURTS of the right to execute
ANYONE. However----beyond that assertion is the FACT that executions
for any person under jewish law at THAT TIME had to be adjudicated in the SANHEDRIN IN JERUSALEM------not a bunch of people in the gutter.
FURTHERMORE------by that time----execution for adultery was actually not
being DONE------especially when PHARISEES were involved-----their policy
was regarding "execution" FIND A LOOPHOLE. Adultery was not treated
like a lynch party------this stuff is WELL DOCUMENTED. Read the NT----if
you can actually READ----with discernment-------it is all there. What happened
to JESUS when he went to TRIAL BEFORE THE SANHEDRIN? was he
sentenced to death? I am generously willing to treat the story as a parable----
in fact-----it is a fraud

Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe. The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.

In the third century, the writer of the church order the Didascalia Apostolorum invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians. The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate, while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition, worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
The Woman Caught in Adultery


There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity. Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.
The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research

You are citing the "OPINIONS" of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
interpret the ODYSSEY. -------- More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
by writers that never met jesus. Use your head. I have no doubt that the bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL so what? Your allusion to 'biblical manuscripts" are just
that--------nothing more. You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?

Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it. The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time. Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about. Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.


Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.


BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:

1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.

2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
(snip)
The Authors of the New Testament


If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [5uke 1:1-4]

Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

The Dating of the New Testament


Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.

The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.

while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
You are still confused, Picaro. What jewish "theology" was transmitted orally?
I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
put in books------but just to what do YOU refer? The psalms? Genesis?

No, dummy, the only one confused here is you. Psalms and Genesis were already part of the Torah. Although some refer to the Torah as only the first five books of the Bible, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), it can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish Bible....which includes Psalms, and they were around before Jesus.

for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
by "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
be described as an ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
did to blacks they accused of "touching a white woman" Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
a PRACTICE

Who made you the authority on what the story of Jesus and the adulteress should be called when you don't even know who wrote the books of the NT? You are so delusional.

 

[irosie91]

Don't give me credit for your gibberish.......which I noticed you didn't even link. Yep, the situation in Israel/Judea during the lifetime of Jesus is well documented.....and yet some still choose to pick and choose which "documented" versions they will believe. The Pharisees were probably not looking to actually execute the woman but merely looking for a way to trap Jesus and there is no reason to doubt that it actually happened.

In the third century, the writer of the church order the Didascalia Apostolorum invoked Jesus’s treatment of the adulteress to illustrate God’s exceptional mercy. This writer did not know the passage from John, but that did not stop him from perceiving it as an authentic story about Jesus. Similar attitudes can be found among other ancient Christians. The Egyptian theologian Didymus the Blind (circa 313–398 C.E.), for example, cited Jesus’s response to the adulteress to exhort bishops to be compassionate when judging sinners, even as he acknowledged that the story was found only in “certain Gospels.” Similarly, Jerome (circa 347–420 C.E.) cited the passage and included it in the Vulgate, while also openly admitting that it was missing from some copies of John. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) developed a novel solution to the story’s odd history: he was of the opinion that a man should not divorce his wife, even on account of adultery, and he accused those who disagreed with him of maliciously editing the story out. Nevertheless, all of these writers viewed this story as fully part of the Christian tradition, worrying less about its absence from an accepted Gospel book than about the meanings they found in it.
The Woman Caught in Adultery


There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity. Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency of information, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination. There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.
The Manuscripts | The Institute for Creation Research

You are citing the "OPINIONS" of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
interpret the ODYSSEY. -------- More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
by writers that never met jesus. Use your head. I have no doubt that the bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL so what? Your allusion to 'biblical manuscripts" are just
that--------nothing more. You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?

Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it. The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time. Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about. Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.


Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.


BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:

1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.

2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
(snip)
The Authors of the New Testament


If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [5uke 1:1-4]

Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

The Dating of the New Testament


Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.

The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.

Irosie>>>
while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
You are still confused, Picaro. What jewish "theology" was transmitted orally?
I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
put in books------but just to what do YOU refer? The psalms? Genesis?

Mertex>>>
No, dummy, the only one confused here is you. Psalms and Genesis were already part of the Torah. Although some refer to the Torah as only the first five books of the Bible, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), it can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish Bible....which includes Psalms, and they were around before Jesus.

Irosie>>>>

for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
by "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
be described as an ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
did to blacks they accused of "touching a white woman" Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
a PRACTICE

Mertex>>>
Who made you the authority on what the story of Jesus and the adulteress should be called when you don't even know who wrote the books of the NT? You are so delusional.

irosie>>>
If you refer to the entire "jewish bible" as "the torah" you are making a mistake.-----not that it Is either important or I care. That which is properly called
"the torah" is the first five books of that which you call "the jewish bible"----the psalms are------another book..

At no point did I suggest a name for the story of jesus and the adulteress-----I suggested that which the story COULD represent. I was being generous----I am
aware of the fact that lots of people actually imagine it represents typical "justice"
in accordance with Jewish jurisprudence-------It, absolutely, does not.. It is so
much at variance with the practice of those times that it is obviously NOT HISTORIC. It is likely to be a parable. I wonder if you could tell me what
role did 'pharisees' play in jewish jurisprudence at that time AS "PHARISEES"??? according to that which your sunday school teacher
taught you?. In the "story" they seem to be a lynch gang which is very much
what ROMANS thought of them. Pharisees would have been delighted to
lynch your SAINT PONTIUS PILATE but in REAL history they opposed
execution of adulteresses. Pharisees would have liked to lynch lots of romans---
and probably did do so a few times. Today-----Israel has no capital punishment
except for ROMANS like Adolf Eichmann----because of PHARISEE IDEOLOGY.
I have told you facts you did not likely get in Sunday school.

in the bible----jesus and the stone throwers is attributed to a "JOHN" Historically
there is no one named JOHN who talked and walked with Jesus other than
JOHN THE BAPTIST who was probably an historic character------the other
"JOHN" did not exist as a separate person. Lots of odds and ends of writings
in the NICEAN BIBLE are attributed to "JOHN" it is probably something like
JOHN DOE, Sorry----mertex----but that is the way it is. No one can identify
that 'JOHN'

 

[JoeB131]

[

Collateral damage is not targeting, dip wad.

The truly sad fucking part is that you say shit like that and really mean it.

And then you wonder why they want to kill you.

 

[irosie91]

[

Collateral damage is not targeting, dip wad.

The truly sad fucking part is that you say shit like that and really mean it.

And then you wonder why they want to kill you.

I do not wonder why muslims want to kill "us" I have interacted with muslims
for more than 45 years------so I do know. I will give you a hint------it ain't nuthin' new

 

[JoeB131]

I do not wonder why muslims want to kill "us" I have interacted with muslims
for more than 45 years------so I do know. I will give you a hint------it ain't nuthin' new

Frankly, I couldn't imagine a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Pastafarian or Pagan interacting with you for more than 45 minutes without wanting to do great bodily harm to you.

You are just that obnoxious.

 

[irosie91]

I do not wonder why muslims want to kill "us" I have interacted with muslims
for more than 45 years------so I do know. I will give you a hint------it ain't nuthin' new

Frankly, I couldn't imagine a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Pastafarian or Pagan interacting with you for more than 45 minutes without wanting to do great bodily harm to you.

You are just that obnoxious.

oh gee------I cannot say I have interacted with GOTH PAGANS much----the pieced tongues bother me------but I have certainly interacted with Rastas

 

[JoeB131]

oh gee------I cannot say I have interacted with GOTH PAGANS much----the pieced tongues bother me------but I have certainly interacted with Rastas

That whistling sound you hear is the point going right over your head.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

[

Collateral damage is not targeting, dip wad.

The truly sad fucking part is that you say shit like that and really mean it.

And then you wonder why they want to kill you.

I mean it; but not with the phony numbers you present. How many offenses and attacks to Muzzies do on the Israelis? Of course, some of them are gonna die in the crosshairs. The sad; nay, it's not sad. You're just a fucking trained lemming.

 

[ChrisL]

oh gee------I cannot say I have interacted with GOTH PAGANS much----the pieced tongues bother me------but I have certainly interacted with Rastas

That whistling sound you hear is the point going right over your head.

Or it could be from the pierced tongue.

 

[JoeB131]

I mean it; but not with the phony numbers you present. How many offenses and attacks to Muzzies do on the Israelis? Of course, some of them are gonna die in the crosshairs. The sad; nay, it's not sad. You're just a fucking trained lemming.

the sad thing is you do mean it.

The Zionists kill 2000 Palestinians. No big deal.

We kill half a million Iraqis over weapons that don't exist. No big deal.

Some angry young Muslims in France see this and engage in a terrorist attack "OH MY GOD IT'S A WAR OF CIVILIZATIONS WHAT BARBARIANS WE NEED TO TOTALLY GO TO WAR!!!!"

not that you would ever sign up. Get some brown kid from Chicago to do it.

 

[irosie91]

I mean it; but not with the phony numbers you present. How many offenses and attacks to Muzzies do on the Israelis? Of course, some of them are gonna die in the crosshairs. The sad; nay, it's not sad. You're just a fucking trained lemming.

the sad thing is you do mean it.

The Zionists kill 2000 Palestinians. No big deal.

We kill half a million Iraqis over weapons that don't exist. No big deal.

Some angry young Muslims in France see this and engage in a terrorist attack "OH MY GOD IT'S A WAR OF CIVILIZATIONS WHAT BARBARIANS WE NEED TO TOTALLY GO TO WAR!!!!"

not that you would ever sign up. Get some brown kid from Chicago to do it.

I served in the US navy------I do not recall a whole lot of brown kids from
Chicago----lots of very white skinned southerners

 

[Mertex]

You are citing the "OPINIONS" of people who had nothing to do with the events and knew nothing about the practices of the day------something like me trying to
interpret the ODYSSEY. -------- More than 200 years after an event vaguely described
by writers that never met jesus. Use your head. I have no doubt that the bible of today compares favorably with that which was put together by the NICEAN COUNCIL so what? Your allusion to 'biblical manuscripts" are just
that--------nothing more. You got something written by Jesus or Mary or John the Baptist?

Your statement just shows how ignorant you truly are and that you really don't know enough about the Bible to be arguing over it. The NT wasn't written at the exact time that Jesus was on earth, but the authors of many of the NT books did walk with Jesus and did know about the events and practices of the day because they were alive and lived there during that time. Also, it wasn't written 200 years after.....another indication that you really don't know what you are talking about. Scholars who know and understand a lot more than you do have placed the writing of the New Testament at no later than 62 AD.


Here, acquaint yourself with the authors....so you don't repeat your inane comment that the writers never met Jesus.


BRIEF BIOGRAPHY OF EACH AUTHOR:

1. Matthew: Mathew, also known as Levi, was a publican or tax collector who was chosen by Jesus to be one of the twelve Apostles. As a tax collector Matthew would have been a literate person well suited to author one of the gospel records. Early church tradition credits Matthew with the authorship of the gospel bearing his name.

2. Mark: This disciple is given credit by the early church as the author of the Gospel bearing his name. Mark was the Latin surname given to this young man who's Jewish name was John. John Mark was cousin to Barnabas a prominent figure in the early church. Mark traveled with his cousin Barnabas in ministry and later in years ministered to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Mark is not identified as one who walked with Jesus yet his association with the Apostles makes him more than qualified to produce a gospel record.
(snip)
The Authors of the New Testament


If Acts was written in 62 or before, and Luke was written before Acts (say 60), then Luke was written less than thirty years of the death of Jesus. This is contemporary to the generation who witnessed the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. This is precisely what Luke claims in the prologue to his Gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up a record of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who were eye-witnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. [5uke 1:1-4]

Luke presents the same information about who Jesus is, what he taught, and his death and resurrection as do the other Gospels. Thus, there is not a reason to reject their historical accuracy either.

The Dating of the New Testament


Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

While it wasn't written down, it was being transmitted orally before that, as was the norm for much of Jewish theology; the first Christians were mostly Jewish, after all, and in the beginnings they preached from the Jewish Temple, until the persecutions began anyway.

The 'orthodox' version won out because they were by far the most extant and accepted; the claims that the Romans and Constantine rewrote it all and excluded some vast amount of Gospels is just nonsense, based on finding a few scrolls and expanding their importance in typical conspiracy theory fashion into some sort of fiction of a huge majority of Xians, when in fact they were very minor and scattered offshoots of no importance. The Gnostics weren't Christians, in any case, just sophists and in many cases liars and forgers, as were the 'Arianists' and others.

Irosie>>>
while not as confused as is Mertex regarding jewish theology and ethos----
You are still confused, Picaro. What jewish "theology" was transmitted orally?
I am not suggesting that there was no unwritten stuff that eventually got
put in books------but just to what do YOU refer? The psalms? Genesis?

Mertex>>>
No, dummy, the only one confused here is you. Psalms and Genesis were already part of the Torah. Although some refer to the Torah as only the first five books of the Bible, (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy), it can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish Bible....which includes Psalms, and they were around before Jesus.

Irosie>>>>

for the record-----the story of jesus and the adulteress about to be stoned
by "Pharisees"--------does not make any sense at all unless the event can
be described as an ILLEGAL LYNCHING-----something like southern Christians
did to blacks they accused of "touching a white woman" Ie---the NT is describing that which would be a crime in the Jurisprudence of the day----not
a PRACTICE

Mertex>>>
Who made you the authority on what the story of Jesus and the adulteress should be called when you don't even know who wrote the books of the NT? You are so delusional.

irosie>>>
If you refer to the entire "jewish bible" as "the torah" you are making a mistake.-----not that it Is either important or I care. That which is properly called
"the torah" is the first five books of that which you call "the jewish bible"----the psalms are------another book..

Are you intentionally dense or is it something you can't help? I fully explained about the Torah - and have now highlighted in red and bigger print so maybe you'll be able to read it this time.

At no point did I suggest a name for the story of jesus and the adulteress-----I suggested that which the story COULD represent. I was being generous----I am
aware of the fact that lots of people actually imagine it represents typical "justice"
in accordance with Jewish jurisprudence-------It, absolutely, does not.. It is so
much at variance with the practice of those times that it is obviously NOT HISTORIC. It is likely to be a parable. I wonder if you could tell me what
role did 'pharisees' play in jewish jurisprudence at that time AS "PHARISEES"??? according to that which your sunday school teacher
taught you?. In the "story" they seem to be a lynch gang which is very much
what ROMANS thought of them. Pharisees would have been delighted to
lynch your SAINT PONTIUS PILATE but in REAL history they opposed
execution of adulteresses. Pharisees would have liked to lynch lots of romans---
and probably did do so a few times. Today-----Israel has no capital punishment
except for ROMANS like Adolf Eichmann----because of PHARISEE IDEOLOGY.
I have told you facts you did not likely get in Sunday school.

I'm not even going to bother addressing this gibberish as you are just rambling and addressing other topics and pretending to know something when you have already proven you really don't know much.

in the bible----jesus and the stone throwers is attributed to a "JOHN" Historically
there is no one named JOHN who talked and walked with Jesus other than
JOHN THE BAPTIST who was probably an historic character------the other
"JOHN" did not exist as a separate person. Lots of odds and ends of writings
in the NICEAN BIBLE are attributed to "JOHN" it is probably something like
JOHN DOE, Sorry----mertex----but that is the way it is. No one can identify
that 'JOHN'

Again....more gibberish. Of course there was another John. John the disciple is not the same as John the Baptist....and your comment "who was probably an historic character" regarding John the Baptist doesn't even make any sense.

Here is some reference to John the Apostle....you need to acquaint yourself a little better before spewing such ignorant gibberish that doesn't even deserve a response.

History of John the Disciple of Jesus

John the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your claim that your source is more accurate because my source (the disciples) was not written till 200 years after the fact, when your source wasn't even around until 325 AD and the disciples were actually around at the time of Jesus, discredits anything else you might have to say.

 

[irosie91]

Mertex-------I do not buy into the silly sophistry of your priest------I do reality-----your comment about jewish scriptures is jibberish and you are very vulgar. Your priest and or catetchism whore do not get to define that which jewish scriptural writings are or are not---------no one actually knows who matthew was------and luke never met
Jesus