RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message

LoyalGypsy -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (4/28/2008 6:53:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

This sounds like a lot of rabbinic to me. LoyalGypsy, the Ruach Ha Chedosh (Holy Spirit) may have made it clear to you what He wrote.

He may have written the commandment that condemns false witnesses to the same fate that would have been applied to the accused.

That said, are you calling yourself a prophet and are you willing to accept the biblical penalty should you be mistaken?



What do you mean?
quote:

He may have written the commandment that condemns false witnesses to the same fate that would have been applied to the accused.



LG


Duet 19:18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.



Greetings,

Then there must be a place where you can offer according to what is written above, the scripture says by giving false testimony against his brother, .....where is that in what I said ....that made you think that??

Was a calling a brother a floozy...[:D]

LG



Doc65 -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (4/28/2008 9:30:16 PM)

quote:

.....I don’t see where knowing what He wrote is instructing the Lord, He made quite visible what He wrote, all we have do is read the scenario, it speaks for itself

What are the 2 greatest commandments?

What are 2 of the Ten Commandments that were being broken, when we look at those we have what He wrote the 2 times... and is verified by the conviction of the crowd and when He addressed the women.


Eisegesis, eisegesis, eisegesis...[>:]



phyl2 -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (4/28/2008 11:47:49 PM)

quote:

so the one she was with in that respect was not her husbandman because it was outside the covenant with Israel, = a type of fornication of the faith


A husbandman is a farmer. We aren't told the occupation of the man she was living with who was not her husband.



LoyalGypsy -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (4/29/2008 7:11:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doc65

quote:

.....I don’t see where knowing what He wrote is instructing the Lord, He made quite visible what He wrote, all we have do is read the scenario, it speaks for itself

What are the 2 greatest commandments?

What are 2 of the Ten Commandments that were being broken, when we look at those we have what He wrote the 2 times... and is verified by the conviction of the crowd and when He addressed the women.


Eisegesis, eisegesis, eisegesis...[>:]



Greetings,

Absoulty! Eisegesis,
RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy?
""all we have do is read the scenario, it speaks for itself ""


Speaking of that here....Has absolutly nothing to do with the "women caught in adulteryl" but that by Jesus "acting out" what He wrote in the dirt.... with the women at the well.
Eisegesis,



LG



Bluethread -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (4/29/2008 5:14:55 PM)

You had stated that the account of Yeshua writing in the dust must refer to Him writing the ten commandmants. I pointed out that He could have been writing the commandment regarding purgary.

Just in case we are talking past each other, I will repeat my inquiry also. Since you were so dogmatic about not needing Scripture to prove what He wrote, I was just wondering if considered yourself a prophet and, if so, were familiar with the risks involved.

De 18:20
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."



LoyalGypsy -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (4/29/2008 8:53:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

You had stated that the account of Yeshua writing in the dust must refer to Him writing the ten commandments. I pointed out that He could have been writing the commandment regarding perjury.

Just in case we are talking past each other, I will repeat my inquiry also. Since you were so dogmatic about not needing Scripture to prove what He wrote, I was just wondering if considered yourself a prophet and, if so, were familiar with the risks involved.

De 18:20
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."



Greetings

quote:

Since you were so dogmatic about not needing Scripture to prove what He wrote, I was just wondering if considered yourself a prophet and, if so, were familiar with the risks involved.


This is because I have no idea what risks are involved and what prediction stems from simple scripture reading???

You mentioned the first time
Duet 19:18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother.

What does ....Duet 18:20 have to do with interpreting scripture with scripture?
……….I mean by the mere fact of quoting scripture, and acting on those principals therein.....
Isn’t' that what we are commanded to do, and to give such testimony on how they work??

It is confusing to a point trying to figure how the false prophet thing fits into what Jesus wrote.

quote:

I pointed out that He could have been writing the commandment regarding perjury.


Can you give the example where this perjury was?



But…
If you are referring to Jesus who called them an evil adulterous generation then it stands to reason that He did not come express that principal in the Law of Moses that says “do to him as he intended to do to his brother”… while addressing the crowd in the teaching of the women caught in adultery.
Because this was trumped by the second greatest commanded, whereby He walked in.

.........But It stands to reason that Deut 19:18 does not fit that scenario, because they were already an evil and adulterous generation then there was nothing to warrant Jesus by that principal that Jesus had to do to His brothers in the Law, which is trumped by the second greatest commandment.


The woman was in the third person in respect to the principal where …Moses commanded ….to do to him…. as “he” intended… to do to his brother.
………They were not out to get the women….they were out to get Him!!

IMO…. the principal in Deut 19:18 does not fit that scenario on 2 points,
The first is because what is written in the Law of Moses in Deut 19:18, which Is between a brother/Sis ….and a Brother/Sis, ...in the first persons ….

And we see, Jesus is acting as that mediator between them and the women (Heb 8:6) and second they were not His disciples (that they should be called a Brother)





Is written when Moses received the commandments, he went up and came down …2 times

To receive the first set of commandments it is written that God commanded Moses to go up alone, acting as that mediator between God and Israel….. We see, Jesus acting as that same mediator between them and the women, and when Moses came down the first time….. Israel was found to be worshipping another God.
……..This same worship is seen here in this statement
4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ….5 In the Law….. Moses commanded us
now if we read in the scriptures by their very own words “ they said”… that they are disciples of Moses.
But ….the very first commandment says,
1 Thou shalt have none other “g”ods before me.

…..But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with “his finger”.


quote:

I was just wondering if considered yourself a prophet and, if so, were familiar with the risks involved.


I always stand on the word, I don't need permission to speak, its a given



But what is your opinion on what He (God) wrote with his finger? (the first time)



Loyal Gypsy



Bluethread -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (4/30/2008 3:53:50 PM)

I am not saying that Yeshua wrote the command against purgery in the dust when He was presented with the woman accused of adultory. I am merely suggesting it as a possibility.
I believe it is a possibility because He had just said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Then after everyone left He asked her where her accusers(witnesses) were. It is possible that upon seeing the penalty for purgery the witnesses(who are required by law to cast the first stone) left and as the rest made the connection they left. This is just a possibility. I don't know for sure what He wrote.

Now, if you can show me where the Scriptures tell us what He wrote, that would be interesting.



LoyalGypsy -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (4/30/2008 6:57:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

I am not saying that Yeshua wrote the command against purgery in the dust when He was presented with the woman accused of adultory. I am merely suggesting it as a possibility.
I believe it is a possibility because He had just said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." Then after everyone left He asked her where her accusers (witnesses) were. It is possible that upon seeing the penalty for perjury the witnesses (who are required by law to cast the first stone) left and as the rest made the connection they left. This is just a possibility. I don't know for sure what He wrote.

Now, if you can show me where the Scriptures tell us what He wrote, that would be interesting.



Greetings,

quote:

It is possible that upon seeing the penalty for perjury the witnesses (who are required by law to cast the first stone) left and as the rest made the connection they left. This is just a possibility.



We don’t deal in possibilities in this house, but since you took that easy path, perhaps this will be of assistance...

Now this should be easy…. And To continue...can anyone show where the oral law was first introduced into practice in the Torah scriptures, and we will show why the scripture says this
…….John 8:9 - Show Context
Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one,


And we will show why the scripture says in this reference in John 8 … beginning with the oldest even to the last.…..
As it is written below.

Beginning with the oldest even to the last.

Ex 20:5
You are not to bow down to them or serve them; for I, ADONAI your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sins of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,


Let me associate the 2

Ex 20:5
You are not to bow down to them or serve them; (was already given in the last post)
for I, ADONAI your God, am a jealous God, (But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, ..as though He did not hear.)
punishing the children for the sins of the parents ( Beginning with the oldest) to the third and fourth generation (even to the last. )
of those who hate me, (10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"


But the KEY is the oral law, because the scripture told us that it is…. Then those who “heard” it,
And that which was heard …by them.... is written here… in the context [;)] of
Joh 5:45
Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; “there is one” who accuses you--Moses, in whom you trust.
= 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, (Accused by Moses)being convicted by their conscience, (in whom they trust.) ....went out “one” by “one”,




LG



Lapidoth -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (5/1/2008 3:42:44 PM)

I've been searching, but haven't found it yet.
There is a verse that says the names are written in the ground.

As a possibility, Yeshua could have been "fulfilling" that verse by
writing the accusers name in the ground.

There's really no way of knowing what he wrote.
But I was speculating on a verse in the OT.

I have it marked in one of my Bibles, but which of the 30 or 40 I don't know.
But I will find it for my own sake. LOL.

The bottom line is He ran off the "accusers."
No accuser, no crime.

By the blood of Yeshua, "There is therefore now no condemnation."



Bluethread -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (5/1/2008 4:55:42 PM)

LoyalGypsy:

Sorry, I don't follow. Your explanation of what you believe Yeshua wrote in the dirt sounds like conjecture backed up by a daisy chain of passages. Those passages appear to me have little in common other than the use of common phrases that; if used in that manner, could probably prove almost anything. Or it could be that I am just too thick headed to connect the dots. Either way, I think the Apostles would have told us outright if what He wrote was of great significence. I'm not a real believer in the Davinci Code school of interpreting the scriptures.


quote:

Lapidoth: The bottom line is He ran off the "accusers."
No accuser, no crime.

By the blood of Yeshua, "There is therefore now no condemnation."


If I may I would prefer to see that as, where there are not witnesses, there is no condemnation. One is not found innocent in a court of law. One is found not guilty. Whether or not the woman brought for judgement or the woman at the well was a victim, a law breaker or both only Adonai knows. What I find interesting in these two passages is that the one was told to go and sin no more, and the other was told to go and find her husband. Even without witnesses, we are not free to ignor our shortcomings.



LoyalGypsy -> RE: Was the woman at the well a floozy? (reading into scripture what's not there.) (5/1/2008 8:57:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bluethread

LoyalGypsy:

Sorry, I don't follow. Your explanation of what you believe Yeshua wrote in the dirt sounds like conjecture backed up by a daisy chain of passages. Those passages appear to me have little in common other than the use of common phrases that; if used in that manner, could probably prove almost anything. Or it could be that I am just too thick headed to connect the dots. Either way, I think the Apostles would have told us outright if what He wrote was of great significence. I'm not a real believer in the Davinci Code school of interpreting the scriptures.


quote:

Lapidoth: The bottom line is He ran off the "accusers."
No accuser, no crime.

By the blood of Yeshua, "There is therefore now no condemnation."


If I may I would prefer to see that as, where there are not witnesses, there is no condemnation. One is not found innocent in a court of law. One is found not guilty. Whether or not the woman brought for judgement or the woman at the well was a victim, a law breaker or both only Adonai knows. What I find interesting in these two passages is that the one was told to go and sin no more, and the other was told to go and find her husband. Even without witnesses, we are not free to ignor our shortcomings.



Greetings,

quote:

Sorry, I don't follow.


Then I cant help ya out.[;)]


LG



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI