Taken out of context apparently, but an unfortunate reference.

[rogue06]

Where is the textual evidence this was a "trick"?

This is the sort of question one should expect from someone who in all her years never bothers to read what she so energetically criticizes.

Scripture Verse: John 8:6

This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

© Copyright Original Source

Other translations use "trap," "trick" or "tempt."

Basically, if Jesus were to say that the woman ought to be stoned, then He would be going against his longstanding reputation for showing mercy to the poor and downtrodden, which would adversely effect His popularity. Further it might get Him in trouble with the Romans, who might see the act as overstepping the Jews' authority to exercise the death penalty.

But if He said that the woman shouldn't be stoned, then He would be accused of setting Himself against the Laws on Moses and seeking to undermine social order.

It was designed as a no-win trap and not the only time His enemies tried to ensnare Him thusly (i.e., Mark 10:2)

GotAnswers puts it this way

The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in John 8:1–11. Briefly, the story involves the scribes and Pharisees who, in their continuing efforts to trick Jesus into saying something they could hold against Him, brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. They reminded Him that the Mosaic Law demanded her to be stoned to death. “But what do you say?” they asked Him. At this point, Jesus stooped down and starting writing something in the dirt. When He straightened up, He said, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). Then He stooped down and wrote again. One by one, the people left (verses 8–9).

The Jewish leaders had already disregarded the Law by arresting the woman without the man. The Law required that both parties to adultery be stoned (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). The leaders were using the woman as a trap so they could trick Jesus. If Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, they would accuse him of violating Moses’ Law. If He urged them to execute her, they would report Him to the Romans, who did not permit the Jews to carry out their own executions (John 18:31).

Some scholars have pointed out that the Law of Moses does not specify stoning in all cases of adultery, but rather only in the instance when a betrothed virgin is caught in adultery which would result in both parties being stoned (Deuteronomy 22;23-24), and point out that the most common punishment for adultery at the time wasn't death, but divorce and financial compensation. This can be seen in the Mishnah (which was composed during the first and second century A.D.), specifically Sotah 5:1 which appears to take for granted that the punishment for adultery would be divorce.

Of course, if you simply had bothered to read the text, you could clearly see for yourself "Where is the textual evidence this was a "trick"?"

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

This is the sort of question one should expect from someone who in all her years never bothers to read what she so energetically criticizes.

Scripture Verse: John 8:6

This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

© Copyright Original Source

Other translations use "trap," "trick" or "tempt."

Basically, if Jesus were to say that the woman ought to be stoned, then He would be going against his longstanding reputation for showing mercy to the poor and downtrodden, which would adversely effect His popularity. Further it might get Him in trouble with the Romans, who might see the act as overstepping the Jews' authority to exercise the death penalty.

But if He said that the woman shouldn't be stoned, then He would be accused of setting Himself against the Laws on Moses and seeking to undermine social order.

It was designed as a no-win trap and not the only time His enemies tried to ensnare Him thusly (i.e., Mark 10:2)

GotAnswers puts it this way

The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in John 8:1–11. Briefly, the story involves the scribes and Pharisees who, in their continuing efforts to trick Jesus into saying something they could hold against Him, brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. They reminded Him that the Mosaic Law demanded her to be stoned to death. “But what do you say?” they asked Him. At this point, Jesus stooped down and starting writing something in the dirt. When He straightened up, He said, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). Then He stooped down and wrote again. One by one, the people left (verses 8–9).

The Jewish leaders had already disregarded the Law by arresting the woman without the man. The Law required that both parties to adultery be stoned (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). The leaders were using the woman as a trap so they could trick Jesus. If Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, they would accuse him of violating Moses’ Law. If He urged them to execute her, they would report Him to the Romans, who did not permit the Jews to carry out their own executions (John 18:31).

Some scholars have pointed out that the Law of Moses does not specify stoning in all cases of adultery, but rather only in the instance when a betrothed virgin is caught in adultery which would result in both parties being stoned (Deuteronomy 22;23-24), and point out that the most common punishment for adultery at the time wasn't death, but divorce and financial compensation. This can be seen in the Mishnah (which was composed during the first and second century A.D.), specifically Sotah 5:1 which appears to take for granted that the punishment for adultery would be divorce.

Of course, if you simply had bothered to read the text, you could clearly see for yourself "Where is the textual evidence this was a "trick"?"

The word used εκπειραζοντες [to prove/test thoroughly] or tempt does not automatically mean to trick. That is down to the decision of the translator.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Have you determined your presuppositions yet?

Are you the under-study, or his echo?

[rogue06]

The word used εκπειραζοντες [to prove/test thoroughly] or tempt does not automatically mean to trick. That is down to the decision of the translator.

864c697e-e9f2-48ee-b638-a30f45b7ca53.jpg



Since I'm not a big fan of Strong's let's take a look at what the University of Chicago's Logion lexicon has to say
a36ed996-2feb-4f5e-b9a9-89fb201f7de2.jpg

And the Perseus Digital Library agrees
df155261-0c2c-48ee-bbbb-877c8393d6a4.jpg

So it would appear that "tempt" is the best translation with Strong also supporting "trap" and "test" as well. And while tempting is a form of testing, as can see by the three temptations (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf., Mark 1:12-13), it was an effort to trick Jesus.

ETA: That it was a trap is supported by the fact that this was hardly the first time His enemies tried to establish a no-win trap for Him.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

864c697e-e9f2-48ee-b638-a30f45b7ca53.jpg



Since I'm not a big fan of Strong's let's take a look at what the University of Chicago's Logion lexicon has to say
a36ed996-2feb-4f5e-b9a9-89fb201f7de2.jpg

And the Perseus Digital Library agrees
df155261-0c2c-48ee-bbbb-877c8393d6a4.jpg

So it would appear that "tempt" is the best translation with Strong also supporting "trap" and "test" as well. And while tempting is a form of testing, as can see by the three temptations (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf., Mark 1:12-13), it was an effort to trick Jesus.

ETA: That it was a trap is supported by the fact that this was hardly the first time His enemies tried to establish a no-win trap for Him.

Once again I am of the opinion that along with tabibito you do not read what I have written, given that I included the word "tempt" in my previous reply.

However, to tempt/test does not automatically mean to trick which is the word Mountain Man employed.

[Mountain Man]

I have not repeatedly praised Hitler. Once again your mendacity is on full view.

Really? Let's see here...

Certainly Hitler was a brilliant orator and very good at rousing a crowd

I do not think anyone would deny Hitler's oratorical skills.

[Hitler] knew [as I wrote earlier] how to "work" a crowd.

[Hitler] was a gifted orator.

The fact remains that Hitler was a skilled orator

I would say that qualifies as "repeatedly".

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Really? Let's see here...







I would say that qualifies as "repeatedly".

Given the various historians who have written biographies of Hitler and commented on his oratorical skills, do you consider those individuals [I cited three] also "admired" or were "proud" of Hitler?

[Mountain Man]

Where is the textual evidence this was a "trick"?

Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery

The Romans took little interest in the religious affairs of their conquered peoples providing those religious beliefs did not affect the status quo and Rome's overall control of that specific province. Anything that threatened the status quo [e.g. in Judaea an individual being proclaimed as the King of Jews] were another matter.

He did not condemn her.

Jesus was not a Christian. He lived and died a practising and observant Jew.

Maybe if you bothered to actually read the passage you are referring to, you wouldn't seem so ignorant.

Scripture Verse: John 8

...they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.

© Copyright Original Source

The pharisees were clearly challenging Jesus' authority with what they thought was a legal Catch 22, as they had done on previous occasions. If Jesus said, "Do not stone her," then they would have accused him of disobeying the Laws of the Moses and breaking their covenant with God. If Jesus said, "Go ahead and stone her," then they would have accused him of sedition for violating the laws of Rome, because while Rome may not have troubled itself with religious disputes, the authorities certainly would have taken notice if a group of men murdered a woman in the streets. Jesus clearly knew what the game was, so he shrewdly exposed their hypocrisy by turning their challenge back on them.

And while Jesus did not condemn the woman for adultery, he did caution her to "sin no more", suggesting that her actions up to that point had been sinful. He was not excusing adultery (assuming she was actually guilty of it) but was offering her a chance of repentance and salvation.

As I said, you Bible dunces love to quote "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" out of context because you ignorantly believe it prohibits Christians from condemning sin.

[rogue06]

Once again I am of the opinion that along with tabibito you do not read what I have written, given that I included the word "tempt" in my previous reply.

However, to tempt/test does not automatically mean to trick which is the word Mountain Man employed.

It's ironic that you, of all people, would accuse others of not reading what you have written given how you tend to gloss over so much.

Such as

So it would appear that "tempt" is the best translation with Strong also supporting "trap" and "test" as well. And while tempting is a form of testing, as can see by the three temptations (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf., Mark 1:12-13), it was an effort to trick Jesus.

ETA: That it was a trap is supported by the fact that this was hardly the first time His enemies tried to establish a no-win trap for Him.

Or from my previous post

Basically, if Jesus were to say that the woman ought to be stoned, then He would be going against his longstanding reputation for showing mercy to the poor and downtrodden, which would adversely effect His popularity. Further it might get Him in trouble with the Romans, who might see the act as overstepping the Jews' authority to exercise the death penalty.

But if He said that the woman shouldn't be stoned, then He would be accused of setting Himself against the Laws on Moses and seeking to undermine social order.

It was designed as a no-win trap and not the only time His enemies tried to ensnare Him thusly (i.e., Mark 10:2)

You know, the evidence for why, in this instance, "trick" is probably the best reading

Maybe I should start squealing that you refuse to address something, but unlike yourself, only do so when you actually don't provide an answer.

[tabibito]

Do you have a point to make?

Civil Discourse and Maranatha have both provided adequate summation.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Civil Discourse and Maranatha have both provided adequate summation.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's ironic that you, of all people, would accuse others of not reading what you have written given how you tend to gloss over so much.

Such as

So it would appear that "tempt" is the best translation with Strong also supporting "trap" and "test" as well. And while tempting is a form of testing, as can see by the three temptations (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; cf., Mark 1:12-13), it was an effort to trick Jesus.

ETA: That it was a trap is supported by the fact that this was hardly the first time His enemies tried to establish a no-win trap for Him.

Or from my previous post

Basically, if Jesus were to say that the woman ought to be stoned, then He would be going against his longstanding reputation for showing mercy to the poor and downtrodden, which would adversely effect His popularity. Further it might get Him in trouble with the Romans, who might see the act as overstepping the Jews' authority to exercise the death penalty.

But if He said that the woman shouldn't be stoned, then He would be accused of setting Himself against the Laws on Moses and seeking to undermine social order.

It was designed as a no-win trap and not the only time His enemies tried to ensnare Him thusly (i.e., Mark 10:2)

You know, the evidence for why, in this instance, "trick" is probably the best reading

Maybe I should start squealing that you refuse to address something, but unlike yourself, only do so when you actually don't provide an answer.

The use of the English word "trick" is not implied by the Greek. That is a decision made by a translator.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Maybe if you bothered to actually read the passage you are referring to, you wouldn't seem so ignorant.

Scripture Verse: John 8

...they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.

© Copyright Original Source

The pharisees were clearly challenging Jesus' authority with what they thought was a legal Catch 22, as they had done on previous occasions. If Jesus said, "Do not stone her," then they would have accused him of disobeying the Laws of the Moses and breaking their covenant with God. If Jesus said, "Go ahead and stone her," then they would have accused him of sedition for violating the laws of Rome, because while Rome may not have troubled itself with religious disputes, the authorities certainly would have taken notice if a group of men murdered a woman in the streets. Jesus clearly knew what the game was, so he shrewdly exposed their hypocrisy by turning their challenge back on them.

And while Jesus did not condemn the woman for adultery, he did caution her to "sin no more", suggesting that her actions up to that point had been sinful. He was not excusing adultery (assuming she was actually guilty of it) but was offering her a chance of repentance and salvation.

As I said, you Bible dunces love to quote "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" out of context because you ignorantly believe it prohibits Christians from condemning sin.

To test or tempt does not automatically infer to trick which is what you wrote here:

The Bible doesn't tell us if the woman in question was actually guilty of adultery, only that she had been accused in an attempt to trick Jesus.

The text of that pericope found in later versions of John also states that:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and, making her stand before all of them, ⁴ they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.

Or is this inferred to be yet another lie on the part of the "wicked Jews"?

[tabibito]

They were testing him in order to provide themselves with grounds to bring an accusation against him. That addresses the reason for asking him the question.

Context shows that the allegation of adultery was itself true.

Jesus did not impose a penalty, but did pass judgement. It could be said, against her accusers as much as her.

[Mountain Man]

To test or tempt does not automatically infer to trick which is what you wrote here:



The text of that pericope found in later versions of John also states that:

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and, making her stand before all of them, ⁴ they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.

Or is this inferred to be yet another lie on the part of the "wicked Jews"?

Scripture Verse: John 8

This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.

© Copyright Original Source

They were hoping he would incriminate himself, so, yes, it was clearly a trick, you dumbass.