New Testament Morality

[DavidSMoore]

Yes, adultery is someone who is married having sex with someone else who who is not their spouse or someone having sex with someone else who isn’t their spouse. Or married and having sex with another person who is married… that can be put in a nutshell…

But the question is: Where does it say THE WOMAN was married…..??? Have another look at the definition and show me how you are applying it with disregard to any other option!!

It's a syllogism:

All adulterers are married
The woman was an adulteress
Therefore she was married

Syllogisms have been studied at least since the time of Aristotle. In modern parlance a syllogism would be viewed as a set theoretic tautology. There's no need for the author to explicitly state that the woman is married since it is a simple deduction to conclude-- from the definitions of the words themselves-- that she was married.

You:

Here is something for you to ponder (surprised you didn’t look it up yourself!):

• ’If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.’ (Leviticus 20:10)

Tell me, the ‘Adulterer’ is, here, the one who is UNMARRIED. The woman, the ‘Adulteress’, is married. He is the PRIMARY one said to be committing the act…

The man is called an "adulterer," so he too must be married. Same syllogism as above. Yes, I was familiar with that law-- and in fact I cited it to you in this posting:

New Testament Morality

In Matthew 6:14-15 Jesus is reported to have said the following: “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:14-15, NRSVue) That’s very clear. The only...

www.religiousforums.com

I'm not sure how the law of Leviticus 20:10 would have been interpreted if the man was unmarried.

 

[Soapy]

It's a syllogism:



Syllogisms have been studied at least since the time of Aristotle. In modern parlance a syllogism would be viewed as a set theoretic tautology. There's no need for the author to explicitly state that the woman is married since it is a simple deduction to conclude-- from the definitions of the words themselves-- that she was married.

You:


The man is called an "adulterer," so he too must be married. Same syllogism as above. Yes, I was familiar with that law-- and in fact I cited it to you in this posting:

New Testament Morality

In Matthew 6:14-15 Jesus is reported to have said the following: “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:14-15, NRSVue) That’s very clear. The only...

www.religiousforums.com

I'm not sure how the law of Leviticus 20:10 would have been interpreted if the man was unmarried.

You are hedging…. And you purposely ignored the fact that the woman’s HUSBAND would have been called to cast the first stone - if she had one since:

• ‘A husband is the head of his wife’

If the husband forgave his wife then she would be forgiven from the law since her husband forgiveness takes precedence over the law.

You don’t comment on that… can you say why you don’t?

Here is an article for your consideration:

• “the common law definition as stated in Hull v. Hull, 21 S.C. Eq. (1 Strob. Eq.) 174 (1848): “Adultery is the illicit intercourse between two persons, one of whom, at least, is married.”

Are you still going to argue-the-toss?

Here’s another hint (Should have been stated a long tone before…) The woman was only said to be ‘Caught in the ACT OF ADULTERY’. There is no definitive claim that primary initiator - just that she was a PARTICIPANT in an adulterous act: She was caught in an Adulterous act.

But YET AGAIN I emphasise, for the sake of stimulating your response, that if she was married, her husband would have been called …

Over to you… Pointed response, please!!

 

[DavidSMoore]

You are hedging…. And you purposely ignored the fact that the woman’s HUSBAND would have been called to cast the first stone - if she had one since:

• ‘A husband is the head of his wife'

How do you know that the husband wasn't called first? The story doesn't say anything about who was called to be the first to cast a stone. Once again you're just injecting your own assumptions into the story.

You:

Over to you… Pointed response, please!!

What would be the point? You're just going to ignore whatever I say anyway.

 

[Soapy]

How do you know that the husband wasn't called first? The story doesn't say anything about who was called to be the first to cast a stone. Once again you're just injecting your own assumptions into the story.

You:

What would be the point? You're just going to ignore whatever I say anyway.

You’re not saying anything except that the woman wasn’t a prostitute and that she was the primary adulterer… despite there being no evidence for such speculations.

You are the one ignoring the reality… and now you try to wriggle your way out say: ‘How do you know the husband wasnt called first’…

That’s laughable since the crowd did not say something to the tune of: ‘This woman was caught in the act of adultery AND HER HUSBAND HAS CALLED FOR HER TO BE STONED… teacher, what do you say?’

If she had a husband then He has priority over the law in this regard. The fact that I had to press you several times even to acknowledge the husband-priority aspect tells a lot about your ability to accept a reality with the evidence presented. This is a minor matter and yet you struggle to claim that you are right… what about when you come across weightier matters that DO MATTER…! You will try to force a view that may be wrong… just for the sake of ‘saving face’.. NO NO NO… just accept the truth and move on…. That’s how you learn truth in humbleness. Don’t let false pride take a hold of you!!