• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Pesach 5778 coming up!

Again, very dishonest Ish. It wasn't one church father it was a doze . It would be hard to list one Greek scrap because there were 1,400.

I know you're not trying to defend ideas now, just preserve your facade of expertise but in this case the direct evidence in support of the Pericope, in the form of early church fathers attesting to it's presence in the "ancient" texts, to some of the texts that omit it having a blank space where it would fit, to manuscripts that are likely direct copies of very early texts to the fact that it was in 1,400 of the texts. 1,400. One thousand four hundred texts. If you can't admit that there is at least a debate to be had here and the burden of proof is on you to justify removing it and burden is of a necessity very high, then you are blinded by intellectual arrogance.

Obviously I'm not trying to convince you at this point. I'm trying to establish the truth so that when others read these threads in the future they will not be led astray. So I will contest the "last word" on this until I am sure that no one will think there is a thread of a victory here for your view that the Pericope is undeniably a falsehood added into the Bible.

I will admit that there are interesting questions about why it was cut out of 300 texts but conversely it would be even more interesting to explain why it was so universally added in to so many texts.

At the end of the day you want to latch onto one aspect of the debate, some limited early texts that you deem trustworthy, and completely ignore and dismiss the mountains of evidence that don't rely on textual criticism.
ב"ה
Saying there are mountains of evidence doesn't make it so. There are zero Greek texts in the first 500 years of this era with this story in John.
Period. I'll back that up when I write up the post in the new thread I made. Also, there are zero church fathers who comment on this section of John. They just pass right over it in their comments because it was not in the book of John which they were looking at. They stop with John 7:52 and continue with John 8:12 like it wasn't even there. Because it wasn't back then.

The story may have existed somewhere as a midrash (extra biblical story) but it was certainly, and I mean certainly not in the the Greek Gospel of John that anyone was looking at up through 500 AD.

I'll invite you to respond to my full evidentiary post in a couple of days when I have time to assemble it as a case study for textual criticism; I'll be leading with a famous Baptist scholar I greatly respect. I know it's hard to let go of certain ideas like a certain English language translation is inerrant or something, and I'm sorry to be causing you this pain brother.
It's better me than some lefty embarrassing you with this at the job or in public somewhere... I hope you can see that.
Now either way you'll have an answer for the faith that is in you and you won't be broadsided by this kind of information.

I'm gonna do as VerifyVeritas the moderator recommended to us and stop interacting with you for a day or so. Let you cool down some.
shalom
 
ב"ה
Saying there are mountains of evidence doesn't make it so. There are zero Greek texts in the first 500 years of this era with this story in John.
Period. I'll back that up when I write up the post in the new thread I made. Also, there are zero church fathers who comment on this section of John. They just pass right over it in their comments because it was not in the book of John which they were looking at. They stop with John 7:52 and continue with John 8:12 like it wasn't even there. Because it wasn't back then.

The story may have existed somewhere as a midrash (extra biblical story) but it was certainly, and I mean certainly not in the the Greek Gospel of John that anyone was looking at up through 500 AD.

I'll invite you to respond to my full evidentiary post in a couple of days when I have time to assemble it as a case study for textual criticism; I'll be leading with a famous Baptist scholar I greatly respect. I know it's hard to let go of certain ideas like a certain English language translation is inerrant or something, and I'm sorry to be causing you this pain brother.
It's better me than some lefty embarrassing you with this at the job or in public somewhere... I hope you can see that.
Now either way you'll have an answer for the faith that is in you and you won't be broadsided by this kind of information.

I'm gonna do as VerifyVeritas the moderator recommended to us and stop interacting with you for a day or so. Let you cool down some.
shalom

You're not causing me any pain. I'm just not going to let you mislead people here. I look forward to your post and if you don't start it I will. You consistently ignore the evidence presented to you, make straw man arguments and then try to imply that your opponent is immature and unintelligent for disagreeing with you. You're not debating the issue you're just sneering at anyone who would disagree with you.

The story was attested as being in the gospel from an incredibly early date. It was in a majority of sources. There is far more evidence for it then the speculation again it.

I look forward to meeting you on the field of battle.
 
Can you two please adjourn the battle now until you have established a single suitable battleground and can confine the fighting to there? The overflow onto threads such as this is getting rather frustrating to people who want to discuss the main topic of the thread concerned. I can't see this being resolved very quickly, so please bear the impact on other discussions in mind as you go forward. Thanks.
 
AAAAAAH it was HIS job to execute her then.
he heard their testimony and he knew it was true.
So again, if this LATER EDITION to the Greek text is true... it looks like we have a sinful lamb problem...disobeying daddy's torah. A judge doesn't have the RIGHT to dismiss witnesses in a capitol case.

Really Ish.

Talmudic View according to the Sages.

10Leviticus 20:10; Mishna Sanhedrin 11:1).

The death penalty has not been administered since the Sanhedrin left their court room on the Temple mount in the years preceding the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (nor can it possibly resume until they return there) (Bavli Sanhedrin 41a).

The standard of evidence is two (Deuteronomy 7:6) adult, male, non-related, non-sinning (Exodus 23:1) witnesses who warned the violators immediately prior to their sin that they would be killed by strangulation. The witnesses do not need to see, to use the Talmud's (Makkot 7a) analogy, like a eye-color brush in its tube, but rather to see them acting as lovers do (Rambam Issurei Biah 1:19). However, the Mishna does record (Makkot 1:10), that any court which can't find a way to exempt all cases but at most one in seven (some say seventy) years is a murderous court. Suffice to say, such executions were not at all common

Torah veiw

Deuteronomy 17:6

On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.

Leviticus 20:10

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

John 8:1-11
8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Yeshua stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Yeshua was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Yeshua had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Yeshua said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Where was the man, if they caught them in the act, he should have been brought as well according to Torah and Talmud. Where we're the witnesses required by Torah and Talmud. The Pharisee brought her but were not the witnesses. He judged according to Torah and the Talmudic veiw that was prevalent during Yeshuas time.

story isn't real any way so who knows, it's in the hands of the story teller.
If I were making that one up I'd say he slipped out the window and ran away. What story would you make up when retelling this midrash?
There is absolutely no commandment that says if you catch one criminal but not the other you can't punish the one.
Where did you get that from? Bunch of thieves run, ,1 gets away so not allowed to prosecute the ones you got? come now

So what your saying is you beleive that there are intentional fabrications in the Gospel. I am 100 percent with you if you want to say bad translations that create logic and linguistic errors. But if your saying the that Adonai allowed complete frabications to be presented as truth in what is declared as the whole truth breathed by G-d confirmed by Rauch Hakodesh, then I believe you got things twisted.
 
Last edited:
Really Ish.
Talmudic View according to the Sages.
10Leviticus 20:10; Mishna Sanhedrin 11:1).
The death penalty has not been administered since the Sanhedrin left their court room on the Temple mount in the years preceding the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (nor can it possibly resume until they return there) (Bavli Sanhedrin 41a).
Yes, I alluded to these traditional stories and how I'm not sure If I believe the whole "Sanheydren was called 'bloody' if they killed just 1 person every 70 years" tale.
You'll see I bring up the same things you do but in another post (I just didn't provide the references for peeps here.

The standard of evidence is two (Deuteronomy 7:6) adult, male, non-related, non-sinning (Exodus 23:1) witnesses...
regarding the non-sinning the only real expectation which was ever imposed is that the witnesses were known to be shomer shabbat, according to R" Y'Mizrachi.

who warned the violators immediately prior to their sin that they would be killed by strangulation. The witnesses do not need to see, to use the Talmud's (Makkot 7a) analogy, like a eye-color brush in its tube, but rather to see them acting as lovers do (Rambam Issurei Biah 1:19). However, the Mishna does record (Makkot 1:10), that any court which can't find a way to exempt all cases but at most one in seven (some say seventy) years is a murderous court. Suffice to say, such executions were not at all common; nice references by the way!
Just so others reading know, Rambam is not a talmudic sage, aka Maimonides, but a very respected codifier of Jewish law who lived in Egypt in the late 1100's. He was doctor to the Sultan's court at that time.
I think it's fair to say that worldwide there were fewer adulteresses in times of antiquity than there are today; ereṣ Yisrael included.
I agree that adultery case executions were not common; for one the crime was infrequent probably the deterrent of death penalty helped on this, and having a witness of such an act was surely a rare event. I wonder how many adultery cases there are in Saudia Arabia even today in the modern era with high tech cameras everywhere and such...

Torah veiw
Deuteronomy 17:6
On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness....
John 8:1-11 ...
Yes, so there were certainly ample witnesses in the midrash from John 8 (or John 21:25 or Luke) depending on which Greek gospel you are using.

Where was the man, if they caught them in the act, he should have been brought as well according to Torah and Talmud. Where we're the witnesses required by Torah and Talmud. The Pharisee brought her but were not the witnesses. He judged according to Torah and the Talmudic veiw that was prevalent during Yeshuas time.
We've discussed this already quite amply in this thread or in the thread about divorce-why-so-easy (spilled over in both places). Not sure where you get the idea that the men who brought her were not the actual witnesses. That may be an interesting idea for development.

Some of your points I repeated my answers here but since I've already answered this one quite thoroughly I'll let you catch up and read what I wrote already about it already...
in short "2 wrongs don't make a right" one criminal doesn't get off the hook b/c the cops didn't get the other criminal (for whatever unfortunate reason).


So what your saying is you beleive that there are intentional fabrications in the Gospel. I am 100 percent with you if you want to say bad translations that create logic and linguistic errors. But if your saying the that Adonai allowed complete frabications to be presented as truth in what is declared as the whole truth breathed by G-d confirmed by Rauch Hakodesh, then I believe you got things twisted.
Please read my other posts regarding this in this thread and in the "adultery" thread. don't' wannt repeat myself here and leave something important out.
Also, please read my thread: Biblical Families: Textual Criticism in the bible what it is and does it help or hurt us? to get you started on textual criticism and it's higher calling.
 
Can I sneak in here and ask a question actually related to Passover?
Previously when we've observed this we've been unsure exactly what foods to remove from our home. Yeast for sure, that one's obvious. So then yeast extract seems applicable as well, this is in spreads that we use as well as a flavour enhancer in many packet foods including soup mixes and noodles etc. The idea of removing the yeast is to get rid of the leaven, stuff that makes things rise. So we got rid of baking powder and anything with raising agents in it which includes just about any flat breads and crackers and biscuits/cookies.
This makes it incredibly difficult for me to find anything to feed the kids that's bulky and feels very much like 'religion' rather than obeying YHWH.
This year we're leaning more towards not following this as strictly and allowing baking powder etc, but I'm curious as to what others think, and what you all do in your own homes.
 
Last edited:
Not sure where you get the idea that the men who brought her were not the actual witnesses.
WITNESS (Heb. עֵד, one that has personal knowledge of an event or a fact. The evidence of at least two witnesses was required for convicting the accused (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; cf. I Kings 21:10, 13). Commercial transactions of importance took place in the presence of witnesses at the gate of the town (Gen. 23; Ruth 4); when a document was drawn up, it was signed by witnesses (Jer. 32: 12). The witness of a grave offence, such as enticement to idolatry, was bound by law to expose the offender; if the penalty for the crime was stoning, the witness was obliged to throw the first stone (Deut. 13:7ff.; cf. Lev. 24:11; Num. 15:33). False testimony is banned (Ex. 20:14 [16]; 23:1; Deut. 5:17 [20]; cf. Prov. 6:19; 14:25, et al.). The convicted false witness bears the penalty that would have been inflicted upon the accused (Deut. 19:16–21).

DUTY TO TESTIFY
Any person able to testify as one who has seen or learned of the matter who does not come forward to testify is liable to punishment (Lev. 5:1), but the punishment will be meted out to him by G-d only (see *Divine Punishment ; BK 55b–56a). While in criminal cases the witness is under obligation to come forward and testify of his own accord, in civil cases the duty to testify arises only when the man issummoned to do so (Yad, Edut 1:1; Sh. Ar., ḤM 28:1). Kings are exempt from the duty to testify (Sanh. 2:2; Yad, Edut 11:9) and though high priests are generally exempt, they must testify for the king (Yad, Edut 1:3). The duty relates only to matters which the witness has seen himself, or which he has heard from the mouth of the accused or a party to the action; a man may not testify to things of which he has no personal knowledge (Rema ḤM 28:1), nor may he testify on what he has heard other people telling him, however true and trustworthy it may appear to him (Yad, Edut 17:1,5), and any such testimony is regarded as false (ibid.).

If the Pharasse were the witnesses they would have testified to what the saw not just make an accusation.
 
what you all do in your own homes.
My wife plans on taking it all down to the soup kitchen down the street. We decided that would be best instead of throwing it out.
 
Last edited:
WITNESS (Heb. עֵד, one that has personal knowledge of an event or a fact. The evidence of at least two witnesses was required for convicting the accused (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; cf. I Kings 21:10, 13). Commercial transactions of importance took place in the presence of witnesses at the gate of the town (Gen. 23; Ruth 4); when a document was drawn up, it was signed by witnesses (Jer. 32: 12). The witness of a grave offence, such as enticement to idolatry, was bound by law to expose the offender; if the penalty for the crime was stoning, the witness was obliged to throw the first stone (Deut. 13:7ff.; cf. Lev. 24:11; Num. 15:33). False testimony is banned (Ex. 20:14 [16]; 23:1; Deut. 5:17 [20]; cf. Prov. 6:19; 14:25, et al.). The convicted false witness bears the penalty that would have been inflicted upon the accused (Deut. 19:16–21).

DUTY TO TESTIFY
Any person able to testify as one who has seen or learned of the matter who does not come forward to testify is liable to punishment (Lev. 5:1), but the punishment will be meted out to him by G-d only (see *Divine Punishment ; BK 55b–56a). While in criminal cases the witness is under obligation to come forward and testify of his own accord, in civil cases the duty to testify arises only when the man issummoned to do so (Yad, Edut 1:1; Sh. Ar., ḤM 28:1). Kings are exempt from the duty to testify (Sanh. 2:2; Yad, Edut 11:9) and though high priests are generally exempt, they must testify for the king (Yad, Edut 1:3). The duty relates only to matters which the witness has seen himself, or which he has heard from the mouth of the accused or a party to the action; a man may not testify to things of which he has no personal knowledge (Rema ḤM 28:1), nor may he testify on what he has heard other people telling him, however true and trustworthy it may appear to him (Yad, Edut 17:1,5), and any such testimony is regarded as false (ibid.).

If the Pharasse were the witnesses they would have testified to what the saw not just make an accusation.
All good stuff and no arguments on definition of a witness and their duty to testify; this is my point in general and goes more to the point that this story is likely a midrash only unless we some how invalidate their ability to testify.

Regarding the Sam'aites who brought her to Him; if your idea is true that they weren't really witnesses (or that none of them were) then
Yeshua didn't need to waste time writing in the dirt and make a graceful "cast the first stone if you've never sinned" comment (which effectively annuls any torah executions). He could have just said "did you see it?"
They Sham'aites then would answer 'no'
then he can dismiss due to zero witnesses.
When I used to believe this story was real I used to preach about what He wrote in the dirt. @Verifyveritas76 had the idea that maybe he wrote the story about Shoshanna, I used suggest perhaps he was writing the names of their illegal lovers or illegal lovers they had at some point in life. Now with your line of reasoning I'm inclined to suggest what if he was writing their sabbath violations? Especially since a sabbath violator is considered worse than a murderer by many of the sages and while a murderer is often permitted burial in Jewish cemetary a known violator of shabbat is not. The murderers don't wanna lay next to him!

example of what Yeshua could have written:
Yochanan ben Sira - 3 years ago made a sale on shabbat
Benyamin ben Shishah - last month lit his oil stove on shabbat to cook some oats
etc....
thus invalidating their testimony as Shabbat violators?
 
Can I sneak in here and ask a question actually related to Passover?
Previously when we've observed this we've been unsure exactly what foods to remove from our home. Yeast for sure, that one's obvious. So then yeast extract seems applicable as well, this is in spreads that we use as well as a flavour enhancer in many packet foods including soup mixes and noodles etc. The idea of removing the yeast is to get rid of the leaven, stuff that makes things rise. So we got rid of baking powder and anything with raising agents in it which includes just about any flat breads and crackers and biscuits/cookies.
This makes it incredibly difficult for me to find anything to feed the kids that's bulky and feels very much like 'religion' rather than obeying YHWH.
This year we're leaning more towards not following this as strictly and allowing baking powder etc, but I'm curious as to what others think, and what you all do in your own homes.
I'm on the way out so this will be short but in spirit similar to your views.
While I'm Azhkenazi meaning I'm supposed to follow German Jewish rules, for Passover I'm conveniently Sepharid (Spanish/Arabic Jew) haha.
Their regulations are Much much gentler for Pesach haha. May I suggest you follow me in this "yoke is easy" tradition.
Viva Espana!
 
Can you two please adjourn the battle now until you have established a single suitable battleground and can confine the fighting to there? The overflow onto threads such as this is getting rather frustrating to people who want to discuss the main topic of the thread concerned. I can't see this being resolved very quickly, so please bear the impact on other discussions in mind as you go forward. Thanks.
Agreed, can we agree the proper place will be the thread on textual criticism?
I hope it won't be a battle...but a search for truth
 
Pesach 5778 coming up!

The reason I wanted to post in the first place. We're organizing a city wide Passover Seder.

I know Pesach is about celebrating at home with family but if you've never celebrated it and want to, your welcome to join us.
 
Last edited:
I used suggest perhaps he was writing the names of their illegal lovers or illegal lovers they had at some point in life.

I’d be inclined to believe that they’d all been with her at some point. When the idea of entrapment was broached, she was the logical choice or scapegoat.
When Christ asks the question who among you is without sin, perhaps he knows this and then none can testify without be personally incriminated because theyd all been with her. While this is purely speculative, IMO it seems the only scenario to explain the different factors written.
 
Can I sneak in here and ask a question actually related to Passover?
Previously when we've observed this we've been unsure exactly what foods to remove from our home. Yeast for sure, that one's obvious. So then yeast extract seems applicable as well, this is in spreads that we use as well as a flavour enhancer in many packet foods including soup mixes and noodles etc. The idea of removing the yeast is to get rid of the leaven, stuff that makes things rise. So we got rid of baking powder and anything with raising agents in it which includes just about any flat breads and crackers and biscuits/cookies.
This makes it incredibly difficult for me to find anything to feed the kids that's bulky and feels very much like 'religion' rather than obeying YHWH.
This year we're leaning more towards not following this as strictly and allowing baking powder etc, but I'm curious as to what others think, and what you all do in your own homes.
I think that's wise, to step into it. This year remove the yeast, and other "leavening agents" like sodium bicarbonate.
We can get a little hardcore on this one at times and forget the spirit of the holiday; especially as believers the beauty in the ritual is the symbolic removal of yeast (aka what they actually had back then). In the states and other areas with large Jewish populations the grocery stores will have many choices (or amazon.com) for Passover replacements for stuff but if you're in a rural area (i.e. New Zealand in my mind), that infrastructure just isn't available. I think the usual advice to take things in steps is a fair way to go about it just like you said.
Keep it light this year, enjoy the holiday, focus on yeast and baking soda this year, maybe next year the extra stringent way will even be fun.
Also if a kiddo is sick or something, most interpreters of torah allow leniency for children, sick, and the elderly even on the day of atonement.
If you can, I think you guys will enjoy the traditional Jewish practice where wife leaves an obvious bit of chamets (chunk of bread or something) and dad "inspects" the house searching for it. When he finds it, it gets wrapped up and taken outside.
Some burn it in a fun ritual. This can be fun for kids following around giggling,, maybe they know where it is and dad just keeps missing the spot :)

Shalom and have a great Pesach!
 
In the states and other areas with large Jewish populations the grocery stores will have many choices (or amazon.com) for Passover replacements for stuff but if you're in a rural area (i.e. New Zealand in my mind), that infrastructure just isn't available.
That must make things so much easier. We don't have anything like that here at all.
I'm getting rid of all the 'risen' things, which means a couple of cake mixes I had in the cupboard for emergencies (like when the kids' birthday cake failed just before their party, yes this has happened lol) so now we get to eat cake all week he he. Passover's not so bad ;).

New question: What did Yeshua dip the bread into? The bible doesn't say, just that it's a dish. What do Jews use as dips during the Passover meal? I've gone a bit batty trying to figure it out myself online. No one really seems to have any straightforward answers.
 
What did Yeshua dip the bread into? The bible doesn't say, just that it's a dish. What do Jews use as dips during the Passover meal? I've gone a bit batty trying to figure it out myself online. No one really seems to have any straightforward answers.

Olive oil? I’ll be curious to see what the answer is, supposing someone knows.
 
That must make things so much easier. We don't have anything like that here at all.
I'm getting rid of all the 'risen' things, which means a couple of cake mixes I had in the cupboard for emergencies (like when the kids' birthday cake failed just before their party, yes this has happened lol) so now we get to eat cake all week he he. Passover's not so bad ;).

New question: What did Yeshua dip the bread into? The bible doesn't say, just that it's a dish. What do Jews use as dips during the Passover meal? I've gone a bit batty trying to figure it out myself online. No one really seems to have any straightforward answers.
Might have been charoset or some ancient equivalent of it.
Charoset is like an fruit/nut/honey/wine mixture though I'm not sure if it was around in Yeshua's day.
The other items in the seder are considerably less appetizing (maror "bitter herbs" often horseradish, salt water, etc).
Azhkenzai Jews today usually dip in Charoset.
Some make a "Rabbi Hillel sandwhich" so we'll take 2 pieces of matzah, put charoset + horseradish (some add lamb also)
I recommend you try this one first in smaller quantity, it's not for everyone to be sure!
I usually do just the 1st 2 in my Hillel sandwhich.
hope that helps!
 
Yeast extract is only lightly related to yeast, and it is nasty stuff.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...-killer-lurking-in-your-kitchen-cabinets.aspx
Yip, it's in everything though. Unless we basically just eat fruits, veges, and meat, then we are going to eat it.
For the record, I don't trust most things that Dr Mercola writes. His stuff seems very inflated and designed to scare the crap out of you rather than inform. Essentially "You're all going to die!" stuff. I think I agree with him on a general level, but not the manner in which he tries to get things across. Same with Alex Jones, but that's a discussion for another day :).
 
Back
Top