> General Discussions
Spurious Passage Revisited
newgene87:
i guess i can finally add my 2 cents in. My question is, regarding "spurious passages"; WHY is John 8:1-11 really a spurious one? i read where Ray actually spoke a little on it...
(quote) John 8:1-11 (all these verses)
That’s the woman taken in adultery. That whole story is not in the Sinaiticus or the Vaticanus, so maybe it’s not Scripture. I can explain it though, because up until last spring I thought it was Scripture. I’ve got an explanation for it, because this is a way to show another contradiction in the Bible. That Christ did not obey the laws of God, that He broke them. Because the law of Moses said to stone her and they ask Him, “what do You say.” Christ said;
John 8:7 …He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.
v. 8 And again bending down, He wrote on the ground.
v. 9 And hearing, and being convicted by conscience, they went out one by one…
So how do you get around the fact that Jesus is breaking the commandment of Moses? Here was the woman caught in adultery, with eye witnesses and Moses’ law said to stone her. How did Christ get around that without breaking the law of Moses? Well I figured out how He did, that is if it is Scripture, it has to do with how Jesus will judge when He returns. Now that’s going to be an eye opener. (end quote, empasis MINE)
Now, i discovered how Jesus "got around" it by allowing the actual scriptures speak for themselves. Actually, John 8:1-11 is one of few moments, Jesus shows keen knowledge of the Law VS the Pharisees trying their best to "tempt" or test Jesus, and missing the full Law. Jesus, the Word made flesh, knew already the TWO distinct circumstances written in the law whether or not a woman, caught in adultery, was to be stoned. Deuteronomy 22:24, speaking of a "betrothed (engaged) damsel (virgin)", if caught in the act, was to be stoned along WITH the man. On the other hand, Jesus knowing their thoughts, knew that this Woman was most likely a man's WIFE, in which the law written in Numbers 5:11-31 speaks of ADULTERY WITHOUT stoning, which actually followed a complete set of instructions to cleanse her act. Jesus fulfilled all the acts of the priesthood and even simulated the "action" of writing (which could very well explain Jesus stooping down to write on the ground)
"and the priest shall write these curses in a book, and He shall blot out with the bitter water" (Num 5:23)
My point is, after discovering the message of this story, it actually reveals the intentions of the Pharisees, their evil hearts, the need of a new covenant (Hebrews 8:7-9), new priesthood, and actually knowledge and agreement of the Law: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 vs Numbers 5:11-31. if John 8:1-11 is so Spurious why does it reveal such an even more wise savior?? Actually, indirectly throwing the Law of Moses in their face WITH the Law of Love. Maybe this is what Ray was on his way to discover but i dont see a contradiction of Jesus and the Law. She was most likely a man's Wife and all the actions of Numbers 5:11-31 were required and Jesus had already supplied her cleansing.
just my 2 cents on this particular spurious passage ;)
Eugene
Gina:
Wow, and thank you for your 2 cents. I never would have considered this:
"and the priest shall write these curses in a book, and He shall blot out with the bitter water" (Num 5:23)
I just was wondering about this same "spurious" passage this past week at work! But I had little desire to study it out for myself to get to the truth of the matter, to be perfectly honest with you all. So, this saying is true: Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them [spiritual manna]; how much more valuable you are than the birds!. (Luke 12:24)
I know I have to keep an open mind about "spurious" passages and while I'm sure some passages could be spurious, once a "spurious" passage is backed up with solid, sensible scriptural support then to say they're spurious is, well, .... for the birds.
Good job, Eugene. :)
Kat:
Knowing that something in a Bible was omitted by both the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts, the oldest manuscripts that had the original text, does make me not want to take it as being absolutely part of the Word of God. There are many ways it could have been added through the centuries. One way that the story could have been added was it was passed down by early church leaders, as this apparently happened with some observers, and was so familiar that it eventually got included into the actual main Scriptural text.
Ray was just saying that he had used this story as a teaching point in some of his articles before he knew it was considered spurious, so he had already figured the answer for it.
If you find it helpful then use it, it just not a certainty.
mercy, peace and love
Kat
Gina:
For me, I was initially like - wow it's not scripture. Bummer. But then I really thought it over and I ended up relieved to think that it's not scripture. I can't explain why. Regardless. No sense in making an idol out of it either way. I just think it's such a lovely ending for not just the woman but the men, too. It's like they were all set free. Though, I can only picture the pharisees weren't nearly as overjoyed re their own freedom. And besides, He was "just a carpenter."
newgene87:
exactly Gina. "no need in making an idol of it". Regardless, i believe the biggest lesson to learn is that it is God...
"Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2Co 3:6)
and as well, Jesus tell us "His Words, His Rhema, is Spirit and Life" (John 6:63)
it's unneccesary to get stuck on what's scripture or not. Jesus speaks truth to us in many different ways and thanks to Ray i see all this. Thanks Kat :D :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version