Does the Son of God have a second witness?

[NetWatchR]

I don't think there is any room for any type of private interpretation possible unless they only further expand on what Jesus said himself.
" I am NOT alone."
I" I stand with the father"
" my other witness is the father"

It's kind of hard to interpret that differently. Just to see anyone do so would be almost amusing.

P.s please forgive punctuation and capitalization errors. Using talk to text.

 

[steve]

I am not sure that I understand.

Yeshua did not witness the adultery.

I know of no case in which YHWH includes Himself as one of the two or three witnesses.

 

[FollowingHim]

As Steve said, He did not witness the adultery. Now obviously He may have done so supernaturally, and could know whether the allegation was true or false supernaturally also, but that is not the issue here. To satisfy the law there needed to be two or three witnesses to put someone to death, and they would have to have physically witnessed it.

Remember that even if Jesus was sufficient witness between himself and God, the crowd and the Pharisees would not have seen that. They would have seen him having the arrogance to put someone to death for a crime that, as far as they could see, He did not witness. That would have given them clear evidence to portray him as a murderer, and he would have had no alternate evidence in his defence. That would be a very messy track to go down.

 

[pebble]

Yeshua did not witness the adultery.

Is it required for Yeshua/Jesus to see the act in real time with His own eyes for Him to be considered a witness? There were examples where He already knew what a person would do even before that person thought about it.

"Love God above all and love our neighbors as ourselves."

It would be more practical for a sinner to repent, be forgiven, and become another witness to the grace of God. And He is a a practical God, how our body functions attest to that. The only thing we can't explain is the mind and the appendix, for now.

I wonder how many other lives God touched through that that adulterous woman. Even at present, many of us live and die anonymously but are used by God for His purpose.

As far as I can tell, the Bible or the ideas/concepts within are simple and fairly straightforward. Even the fancy stuff relating to the temple, priests, and animal sacrifices have practical purposes. They only look fancy on the outside.

Thank you.

 

[Lizness_Princess]

Dear Pebble,

I just googled "what is an appendix for" and in Scientific American (happened to be the first link), there is a very well-written article that shows how we have come to understand the purpose and various functions of the appendix. There were a plethora of various google hits from various medical sites that show consistent answers concerning the appendix.

Just in case you wanted to look it up yourself.

Sincerely,

Lizzie

PS. If the woman who committed adultery was brought forward for judgement, where was the man who committed adultery with her? According to the law, both the man and woman who commit adultery must be put to death (Leviticus 20:10). But, if you notice, no man was brought with the woman...why? And where were the witnesses? It was the teachers of the law and the Pharisees who brought her before Jesus and the crowd...and accused her of being caught in adultery. So which of them were the witnesses and who was the man that committed adultery with her? It almost seems as if while she and the dude were ..."doing it", the other men in the group were watching and hiding behind the curtains, waiting for the "deed" to be done. And as soon as it was, they brought her out to be judged. And if that is the case, then it was all a well-orchestrated scheme to ruin that woman and try to trick Jesus. But if you'll also notice, Jesus told the accusers (the teachers of the law and the Pharisees) that whoever was the one that never sinned to cast the first stone. By leaving one by one, they were admitting their sinful acts. The first person allowed to throw the first stone, by law, was a person who is sinless in the accusation or connection of the accusation. None of the teachers of the law or the Pharisees were sinless in this case, therefore the woman's life was spared. But Jesus was not a witness or an accuser to the act of adultery in this case, therefore He could not throw the first stone either.

 

[FollowingHim]

Curtis, let's back up a step. You are right that I didn't explain myself properly in the other thread, it was a side issue and I didn't think I should go down it at the time. The original comment made by another poster that kicked this off was:

I really believe that what we are actually talking about here is the difference between the law of sin and death and the law of the Spirit. Whereas the Mosaic law demanded that the women caught in the very act of adultery be stoned Jesus did not cast the first stone even though He was the only one qualified to do so. Jesus walked by the law of the spirit of life.

This comment suggested, as I took it anyway, that Jesus disobeyed the Mosaic law - the law commanded that He stone her, and He refused, walking instead by a different law. Maybe I read that differently to you. By my reading, this statement was a serious error, because until Jesus' sacrificial death for our sins the Mosaic law was in full effect, and Jesus followed the law perfectly. If He had broken the Mosaic law, He would have been sinning. He would not therefore have been a sinless sacrifice, and salvation itself would be undermined.

If the law required that Jesus stone this woman, then Jesus is a sinner for refusing. That cannot be correct. Jesus' actions MUST have been in accordance with the law. So how were they?

The answer in my mind is because the law stated that when someone sinned deserving death:

then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. 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. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

If Jesus was a witness, and had a second witness backing him up (the Father), then He would be required to stone her. But if He were not considered a "witness" for the purpose of this law, then this law did not relate to him, and he remains sinless.

What did Jesus actually say to the woman? "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" (John 8:10). He was asking for witnesses. He was looking to find whether there were "two or three witnesses" to her sin. When it was clear that no witnesses remained, He said "Neither do I condemn thee". It all came down to whether there were witnesses.

You quote correctly from later in that chapter about witnesses. But the subject there was not the woman caught in adultery, the conversation had moved on. Rather, it was about Jesus Himself:

12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
13 The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record of thyself; thy record is not true.
14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.

This is a separate conversation. Pay attention to the three bolded statements.
1) Jesus claimed to be the light of the world.
2) The Pharisees objected, saying basically "you're just saying that about yourself, why should we believe you?"
3) Jesus said "because when two men testify to something it is true, and both myself and the Father testify that I am the light of the world, so it is true".
When read in context I don't think this statement relates to the woman caught in adultery at all.

Now, I'm the first to admit that I could be wrong, so if I'm wrong please show me! Just remember that Jesus never sinned, so He cannot have disobeyed the Mosaic law. If the law required that he stone this woman, and he refused, as far as I can see that would make him a sinner and our hope of salvation would be in vain. But do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[FollowingHim]

Lizzie, I agree that the most striking thing about that account is the fact that the man wasn't there. The law required that both be stoned. If she were really "caught in the act" then the people who caught her knew full well who the man was. Why didn't they seize him too and take him to be stoned? Either they really weren't interested in punishing the sin and just wanted to trip up Jesus, or they had a personal grudge against the woman but the man was one of their mates. Either way it's pretty dishonest.

 

[Lizness_Princess]

Okay, so here is my rebuttal: is God your second "witness" in all cases? Because that is really the same question.

If God could be considered as a "witness", then why would He tell His people to bring forward two or three "witnesses" of the sin? Wouldn't His knowledge of the sin be good enough to bring judgement..what then is the use of providing witnesses? Doesn't make sense to me. I don't think God is considered as a "witness," but rather as a judge.

 

[steve]

If God could be considered as a "witness", then why would He tell His people to bring forward two or three "witnesses" of the sin? Wouldn't His knowledge of the sin be good enough to bring judgement..what then is the use of providing witnesses? Doesn't make sense to me. I don't think God is considered as a "witness," but rather as a judge.

Bingo!
If YHWH can be the second witness, then ANY person can stone observed sinners because YHWH sees it also.
Would small lead stones "thrown" with the assistance of a modicum amount of a saltpeter-sulphur-charcoal mixture qualify? Sure would speed things up.

 

[steve]

Lizzie, I agree that the most striking thing about that account is the fact that the man wasn't there. The law required that both be stoned. If she were really "caught in the act" then the people who caught her knew full well who the man was. Why didn't they seize him too and take him to be stoned? Either they really weren't interested in punishing the sin and just wanted to trip up Jesus, or they had a personal grudge against the woman but the man was one of their mates. Either way it's pretty dishonest.

One remote possibility is that we are being led into an assumption of what the "act" actually is. Would bearing a child out of wedlock qualify? If she would not identify the father, then they be without him. Rape, possibly?
We are dealing with a translation of a translation, after all. (You are not going to convince me that they were questioning him on Jewish law in the Greek language.)

Admittedly a stretch, but my only point is that if we do not have all of the details, we sure cannot make doctrine out of it!

 

[FollowingHim]

Simply question, does the son of God have a second witness in all cases?

Simple answer then:

Yes.

Simple question for you: Was the son of God a FIRST witness in the case of the woman caught in adultery?

 

[steve]

Sorry,
I am just not bright enough to understand the point.
Please forgive me for clouding the issue.

 

[FollowingHim]

He had the right to stone her (witness in the spirit). But He was not obliged by the law to do so (not a witness in the flesh). Two different things. His spiritual authority allowed Him to forgive sin etc.

 

[pebble]

I stand corrected on the appendix thing.

Please just ignore this post. This is an interesting thread.

 

[FollowingHim]

No worries Pebble, the myth that the appendix has no known function has been pushed so heavily by the evolution lobby for the last century that a lot of people just accept it as fact. The purpose of the myth is to make people think our bodies have originated by chance and are full of mistakes, rather than being designed perfectly by God. They actually started with a list of something like 150 so-called "vestigial organs" that were only in our bodies as left-overs from evolution and had no actual use - then every single one of them has been found to be very important. But the appendix myth has held on in the public consciousness and refuses to die, probably because everyone knows someone who's had their appendix removed and they still seem ok, so they take this as evidence that the appendix is not needed. In fact it is evidence that our body is so well designed there's a lot of redundancy built in, so you can lose a few bits and other parts automatically pick up their jobs. God's done a great job on it.

Curtis, note that this is a discussion we'd come to an agreement on within 2 minutes if talking face to face, but here we could go on for days...

 

[Lizness_Princess]

Another question, if the son of God did not have the right to stone the women based on who he was, how could he forgive sin before his death and resurrection. Also by what authority did he have to curse the fig tree?

Dear Mr. Curtis,

May I ask you a couple questions of my own?

Why are you asking these questions? Is it because you think you know the answer to them, or because you think you don't know the answer to them, or because you want to know if we know the answer to them?

Also, can you tell us more about what your belief/understanding/opinion is on all of this? Because you haven't really shared at all and I'm curious as to what YOU believe.

And as a few "side questions" - Do you consider yourself a Christian? Why/why not? Do you read the Bible, or do you study it, or not at all? What is your religious background - did you grow up in a church, if so what kind, etc.? I am still a relative "newbie" on the scene here, so I'd really appreciate a little more insight as to what you believe and why.


Sincerely,

Lizzie

 

[Lizness_Princess]

One remote possibility is that we are being led into an assumption of what the "act" actually is. Would bearing a child out of wedlock qualify? If she would not identify the father, then they be without him. Rape, possibly?
We are dealing with a translation of a translation, after all. (You are not going to convince me that they were questioning him on Jewish law in the Greek language.)
Admittedly a stretch, but my only point is that if we do not have all of the details, we sure cannot make doctrine out of it!

I think "being caught in the act" of adultery means the same thing then as it means now. I am pretty sure everyone knows what that means and I don't have to spell it out...lol!!!

Just because something is translated, the message or meaning is not always lost or "radically" different. When my mom says something in Korenglish (Korean-English), I may not understand every word she is saying, but I know full well what she means. I think God gave us just the right amount of details to understand the whole story, but sometimes we try to over-analyze the story or message. Just take Him for His word...

 

[Lizness_Princess]

Dear Mr. Curtis,

What do you mean by "yes"? Which of the three are you saying "yes" to?

I did not read the other thread, but I might..reading really really long discussions is not my desire...LOL!!! It almost feels like 19 pages of one spam email ~ yikes! ;P

The reason why I asked those questions was actually because your questions sounded off to me. I always think it beneficial to understand the person and their views and background before creating judgements or assumptions of what they're actually intending.

I should explain more: I had assumed you are a Christian, and so it was weird to me that you asked:

"Another question, if the son of God did not have the right to stone the women based on who he was, how could he forgive sin before his death and resurrection. Also by what authority did he have to curse the fig tree?"

Which looked remarkably similar to what was asked of Jesus by the teachers of the law and chief priests in Matthew 21, Mark 11, and Luke 20. And if you were a Christian, why would you ask what authority Jesus had...don't you already know who He is and by what authority He did those things?

So this insinuates several options:
A. You're actually an immature Christian who doesn't read or study the Scriptures,
B. You think you know the answer and are waiting for someone to say something "wrong" so that you can correct them and be "right", thereby "winning an argument", or,
3. You're not a Christian, or you don't know the answer and you are genuinely asking the question because you want to know the answer.

It could probably insinuate more options but those are the top three that came to mind. Thus the reason I was asking about your opinion(s) and background. Hope that clears things up more. You really don't have to answer any of those questions unless you want to, obviously. lol...but I would like to know the reason you asked by what authority did Jesus do the things He did.

Sincerely,

Lizzie

PS. I am really liking this "letter format" responses I'm giving...they're fun to write...hahaha!! I hope you guys don't mind!!

*EDIT*
PPS. I am sorry if my questions previously sounded like I was probing for a different reason.

 

[FollowingHim]

I actually doubt anyone would have thought that Jesus was an illegitimate child. By the time He was conceived, Mary was betrothed to Joseph. And Joseph went on to marry her. I expect the few people who added up the dates and thought "hang on, when was he conceived?" would just have concluded that Joseph jumped the gun. And there was no law against him jumping the gun, he'd already committed to her, the only penalty for sleeping with her was that he'd have to marry her, which he was doing anyway, so it probably wasn't an uncommon occurrence. It's only Joseph who would have had to grapple with the concept that the child was not his.

 

[Lizness_Princess]

Lizzie,

I have been a Christian for a very long time. The reason I ask questions is because I still don't know all the answers. Some answers I have learned so that I can help others, and some I need to learn from others. And there are a lot of believers here that have a wealth of information and there are individuals here trying to learn. I ask questions here because I want to know what they think. I know you don't like to read long spammy posts , but it would do you good to go over the things in this board to see what is there. There is a wealth of information here. Not only that but going over old posts helps you learn who we all are here.

Technically, there are no winners in these types of discussions, accept for one thought, and that is the Salvation of the Son of God and how that effects you as an individual. And the second point would be biblical families and the importance of that in families in general. Other than that everything is fair game, with in reason, until we all get to the other side.

Anyway, your letter style looks fine to me, however it might do good to remember that each topic of discussion is best handled if everyone stays on topic. I know that rabbit trails are always going to happen but if we all try and keep to the topic it helps others who come in late understand what is happening. Plus it helps us all keep our minds clear on what we are talking about.

Like I said, if you have more questions about what I believe, please PM me and I will be more than happy to answer them.

Curtis

Thank you so much for encouraging me to research who everyone on the forum is and what their beliefs are. As much as I'd like to do that, I only have so much free time, which I do not use exclusively for this forum, so I usually read the conversations and threads that I find most interesting. I do know from my perusing that most of the threads are spent discussing theological technicalities, which are not always the most exciting reading material (although sometimes, it is quite funny to watch you guys go back and forth about stuff). I also know that most started threads are not open-ended questions but are normally close-ended which means that there should be a consensus answer within the first couple pages of a thread.

In all honesty, I would much rather get to know people from this forum, and them get to know me, by the conversations that we have rather than stalking every single post someone says to formulate a picture of who that person is. But, yes, I have already "lurked" around for a while now, observing and reading, and have only recently started posting on the forum.

I will keep in mind from now on that you just like to ask questions...I wasn't so sure before, so I'm glad you cleared that up for me! I will ask for clarification if need be in the future.

And I'm sorry if there were times it seemed like I was chasing rabbit holes...although I do not know of any cases in which I did so. I might give an analogy or story to emphasize a point that I believe is relevant to the topic, but I try very hard to stay on topic. For this thread, I believe you are the one who brought up the case of the woman who committed adultery as well as God being a "witness", both of which I addressed in my posts. No rabbit holes in the vicinity from my POV. If I'm wrong, PM me.