[clue-talk] Re: Bible Academia

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 10-01 20:53, David L. Willson wrote:
> 
> > > For example, is it right or wrong to stone a woman who was caught in 
> > > adultery?  The God of the Old Testament prescribed this measure.  Then 
> > > Jesus changed our thinking about this.  
> > 
> > I think I've mentioned this before, but I think that's commonly thought of
> > as a forgery. And Jesus did have that quote that I think Jed put in here
> > about not coming to change the law. It becomes a sticky wicket as the Brits
> > say, then. As you say later, though most people pick the choice Jesus made,
> > even if that part is a forgery, and even if they aren't Christians.
> 
> Jesus didn't come to change the law, because you can't change the law,
> you can change how we express the law in convention, but the law itself,
> perhaps best expressed in Jesus' "two commandments" is unchangeable.

Which are those? Oh, had to google them. By themselves, they seem reasonable
enough, at least to me.  
 
> We need to do more citations.  I'm not sure where in the old testament
> God says to stone women caught in adultery, and I would like to read it
> in context.  

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

#193 and #194; there might be more:

#  If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she
#  wasn't a virgin when they were married. If her father can't produce the
#  "tokens of her virginity" (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned
#  to death at her father's doorstep. 22:13-21

# "If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they
# shall both of them die." 22:22
 
> On John 8:1-11, the Pericope of the Adultress, I found a very neat
> website which argues at great length for it's authenticity.

http://www.inu.net/skeptic/ntforge.html

"The Adulteress - John 8:1-11, the story of the adulterous woman, is
intriguing. Some Christians are quick to declare it to be a testimonial to
Jesus. compassion toward women. But is that true? First, it appears only in
the Gospel of John. However, the oldest manuscripts do not contain it7a
Second, it breaks the natural sequence of the narrative. Third, it does not
appear in any New Testament manuscript prior to the fifth century7. fourth,
this story was long considered a forgery until the Council of Trent declared
it "divine truth" in 15467b. For those reasons this story is considered by
most New Testament scholars to be a late Christian forgery8."

The numbers are cites. From what I can tell, it's pretty mainstream in
biblical scholarship to consider it a forgery. I think Price has mentioned
this, and that's the first I've heard of it. The guy really does seem to be
trying to get at legit scholarship regarding the Bible. Like I said, I think
even believers would came away knowing a lot more about the Bible than they
would have before. 

> In any case, we need to remember that Jewish laws (and customs) were not
> what Jesus was here to uphold, but the thing that they reflect.

Later, from the above site:

"If Jesus was anything, he was a stickler where Mosaic law was concerned. In
Matthew 5:17-19 he says, .Do not think that I come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets: I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say unto
you, that until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke
shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished. He goes on to warn
his listeners that, .Whosoever breaks one of God.s laws will be the least in
the kingdom of heaven.. In Luke 16:17 he says, .But it is easier for heaven
and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail..
In John 10:35 he says, .Scripture cannot be broken.." 

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at comcast.net  
http://sean-leblanc.blogspot.com/
I regard the theatre as the greatest of all art forms, the most immediate way 
in which a human being can share with another the sense of what it is to be a 
human being. 
-Thornton Wilder