XPost: alt.messianic, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.archaeology   
   XPost: alt.meditation   
   From: telos@bigpond.com   
      
   And they didn't trick him in desecrating the Temple either.   
      
   I responded earlier, "...it is expressed as a pun in support of the woman's   
   societal inequality and sub-ordination, that she should be arrayed before a   
   judge by false accusers"  For the Scripture says, "Woman-GUNE, where-POU are   
   those-EKEINOS thine-SOU accusers-KATEGORAS {a complainant at law;   
   specifically Satan:-accuser}? hath no-OUDEIS man-OUDEIS condemned-KATAKRINO   
   {to judge against, that is, sentence:-condemn, damn} thee?  She said-EPO,   
   No-OUDEIS man-OUDEIS, Lord-KURIOS." [John 8:10-11]   
      
   If there was no accuser, there was no crime.   
   If there was no crime, there was no sin.   
   If there was no sin, there was no condemnation.   
   If there was no condemnation, there is no need for repentance.   
   Therefore "go-POREUAMAI sin-HAMARTANO henceforth-MEKETI the more-EPISCHUO"   
   is entirely valid.   
      
   - dolf   
      
   "Pastor Dave"  wrote in message   
   news:rdvfa0l0svnhl2u7n9gigeop861rhq38tu@4ax.com...   
   That is your take on it.  But I am not talking about   
   judgment.  I am saying that He upheld the Law.  He did   
   not go against it.  I.e., they didn't trick Him into   
   violating the Law.  Yet He told them to uphold it,   
   while doing it in a way that would make it impossible   
   for them to do so.  In other words, He showed them that   
   they had no right to be bringing her in there, since   
   their entire motive was to commit a sin.   
      
      
   >It is no small matter, as it demonstrates your theology consists only of   
   >fables/myths.   
      
   Really?  Care to prove that?   
      
   QOLON NOTE:   
   According to Rabbi Avi Shafran who is director of public affairs for Agudath   
   Israel of America, the Feast of Pentecost known to the Judeans as Shavout   
   which this year falls on 26 May 2004 (6th of Sivan, 5764), the view may be   
   expressed that the divine revelation at Sinai as the Everlasting Covenant is   
   described as a wedding, with God the groom and His people the bride.  That   
   many of the Jewish wedding customs have their source in such an idea.   
      
   As I said previously, the question arises therefore, with regards to Philo   
   of Alexander's comment, whether all the questioning on marriage by the   
   scribes and the Pharisees were a systematic attempt, deploying Philo of   
   Alexander's scheme to eliminate the esteemed Teacher and Master-didaskalos.   
   And that this plotting or scheming against the Commandments  appears to be a   
   central theological tenet of the contemporaneous Qumran Temple Community who   
   holds a pre-Sinai view of said covenant: "And in Egypt their sons walked in   
   the stubborness of their hearts, plotting against God's precepts and each   
   one was doing  what was right in his own eyes.   
      
   But with those who remained steadfast in God's precepts, with those who were   
   left from among them, God established his covenant with Israel for ever,   
   revealing to them hidden matters in which all Israel had gone astray: his   
   holy sabbaths and his glorious feasts, his just stipulations and this   
   truthful paths, and the wishes of his will which man must do in order to   
   live by them. Those who remained steadfast in it will acquire eternal life   
   and all the glory of Adam is for them." [DSS CD-A III:5 (4Q269) - III:12,   
   BRILL1997:555]   
      
   Rabbi Avi Shafran says that the Sinai Everlasting Covenant (as irrevocable   
   and immutable) experience involved no particular action; it was, in a sense,   
   the very  essence of passivity, acceptance of G-d's Torah and His will. The   
   revelation was initiated by G-d; all that our ancestors had to do - though   
   it was a monumental choice indeed - was to receive, to submit to the Creator   
   and embrace what He was bestowing on them.   
      
   Indeed, the Midrash compares the revelation at Sinai to a wedding, with G-d   
   the groom and His people the bride. (Many Jewish wedding customs even have   
   their source in that idea: the canopy, sources note, recalls the mountain   
   held, according to tradition, "over their heads"; the candles, the   
   lightning; the breaking of the glass, the breaking of the tablets of the   
   Law.) And just as a marriage is legally effected in the Jewish tradition by   
   the bride's simple choice to accept the wedding ring or other gift the groom   
   offers, so did the Jewish people at Mount Sinai create its eternal bond with   
   the Creator by accepting His gift of gifts to them.   
      
   That acceptance may well be the essential aspect of Shavuot. A positive,   
   active mitzvah for the day - an action or observance - would by definition   
   contradict the day's central theme of receptivity.   
      
   And so the order of the day is to reenact our ancestors' acceptance of the   
   Torah - pointedly not through any specific ritual but rather by re-receiving   
   and absorbing it. Which is precisely what we do on Shavuot: open ourselves   
   to the laws, lore and concepts of G-d's Torah, our Torah - and accept them   
   anew, throughout the night, even as our bodies demand that we stop and   
   sleep.   
      
   The association of Shavuot with our collective identity as a symbolic bride   
   accepting a divine "marriage gift" may well have something to do with the   
   fact that the holiday's hero is a heroine, Ruth (whose book is read in the   
   synagogue on Shavuot); and with the fact that her story not only concerns   
   her own wholehearted acceptance of the Torah but culminates in her   
   marriage." [Courtesy: Project Genesis ]   
      
   - dolf   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)