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

[Littlejoe]

He had no legal authority to execute her, He could still lead a lynching mob.

So, the inverse of this position then is that had Christ had the legal authority, you think he would have went ahead with the execution?

[Jedidiah]

. . . snip . . . I simply do not agree that the ends justify the means.

I agree with this portion of your comment.

[Darth Executor]

So, the inverse of this position then is that had Christ had the legal authority, you think he would have went ahead with the execution?

No. As was already explained repeatedly, the execution under Mosaic law requires witnesses willing to testify and start the stoning process. There were none because when Jesus asked for some they all left.

[Littlejoe]

No. As was already explained repeatedly, the execution under Mosaic law requires witnesses willing to testify and start the stoning process. There were none because when Jesus asked for some they all left.

and if witnesses had stayed to testify, He had no authority to carry it out...so, again, how does it matter? Instead of irrelevant, maybe moot is a better term?

[Soyeong]

So I've been in a conversation in another thread in regards to the laws in the Old Testament using stoning as a punishment for breaking the moral laws in the Old Testament. My view on this was that the stoning was a legal law that was applied to a moral law but the challenge has been made that the stoning was part of the moral law and divine law. I'm looking for clarification on this and what reasons people have for their points of view.

If moral laws are only in regard to man's relationship with man, and not man's relationship with God, then the first four of the Ten Commandments are not moral laws, including the law against idolatry. However, if moral laws are also in regard to man's relationship with God, then all of God's laws are moral laws.

In regards to the OT we have as an example:

Lev 20:10

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


In the new testament we have the situation where the Pharisee's confront Jesus with an adulterous women and his then his response.

The penalty of sin is death, so executing someone for adultery would be perfectly justifiable, except for the fact that Jesus paid our penalty for transgressing the law, so there is no need to enforce a penalty that has already been paid.

[Darth Ovious]

No. As was already explained repeatedly, the execution under Mosaic law requires witnesses willing to testify and start the stoning process. There were none because when Jesus asked for some they all left.

In terms of the second part here, I thought it was explained they all left because they too were culpable of the crime whether it was in this specific case or just adultery in general. I'm just asking because I'm not sure what part of the verse refers to any of the Pharisee's as not being witnesses to the crime.

[Darth Executor]

In terms of the second part here, I thought it was explained they all left because they too were culpable of the crime whether it was in this specific case or just adultery in general. I'm just asking because I'm not sure what part of the verse refers to any of the Pharisee's as not being witnesses to the crime.

It doesn't say why they left. It's possible they were all guilty. It's possible they left because they couldn't legally stone her. Either way, the witnesses had to start the stoning and they didn't.

[Darth Executor]

and if witnesses had stayed to testify, He had no authority to carry it out...so, again, how does it matter? Instead of irrelevant, maybe moot is a better term?

Nothing is irrelevant and no offense but you strike me as a very dense person and I'm getting tired of explaining it.

[Littlejoe]

Nothing is irrelevant

Yes it is. Christ's authority has no bearing on this point. I agree he did not have the authority to carry out a sentence, but the point of the story isn't about His authority or lack thereof...therefore, it's moot.

and no offense but you strike me as a very dense person

right, because no one should take offense because they are called "dense" when trying to understand another dense persons poorly explained point.

and I'm getting tired of explaining it.

I understand your frustration, as I too am tired of trying to explain it to you...

[Adrift]

right, because no one should take offense because they are called "dense"

When he starts with the ad homs, it's best just to ignore him. In fact, it's probably just best to ignore him most of the time anyways.

[One Bad Pig]

and if witnesses had stayed to testify, He had no authority to carry it out...so, again, how does it matter? Instead of irrelevant, maybe moot is a better term?

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

[Darth Executor]

Yes it is. Christ's authority has no bearing on this point. I agree he did not have the authority to carry out a sentence, but the point of the story isn't about His authority or lack thereof...therefore, it's moot.

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

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

right, because no one should take offense because they are called "dense" when trying to understand another dense persons poorly explained point.

Doesn't seem all that poorly explained since you're the only one who's not getting it. OBP gets it and appears to have no better luck explaining it to you than I am.

I understand your frustration, as I too am tired of trying to explain it to you...

You're not explaining anything at all, just asking questions that were already answered and making bizarre statements that leave others confused because they make no sense in the context of the conversation.

[Darth Executor]

When he starts with the ad homs, it's best just to ignore him. In fact, it's probably just best to ignore him most of the time anyways.

How about you stick to talking about things you're good at, like making choo choo noises before the train unloads the apple sauce directly into your mouth.

[Darth Ovious]

Lets remember that the New Testament writers would have recorded the details that were important in Jesus' teachings. If it wasn't important then they wouldn't have wrote it. So I think it is better if we focus on what is important about the passage and what Jesus is teaching.

[Darth Executor]

Lets remember that the New Testament writers would have recorded the details that were important in Jesus' teachings.

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