Listen: Donald Trump Releases Statement Following Release of 2005 Lewd Audio

[roamer_1]

I'm quite sure John 8:7 has multiple interpretations, not just the one you ascribe to it...whatever that is.

You can either tell me or we're done. 

No, there's only one interpretation. But to understand it you would need to:
Understand the specific law the woman was accused of, how it is determined, who is punished...
You would have to understand which authority does the judging... How the due process normally works...
How Yeshua must have had authority over the woman (and what that likely authority was), as his decision overrode normal due process...
And you would need to understand the entire concept of 'The First Stone' - who had the right to throw it, what the concept was for, and which authority could have that right if the first holder could not be found (as set out in Torah).

Needless to say, a fairly involved process to inform you (which I would be happy to do), but which would be a lengthy sidebar - Perhaps better left for another time. If you are indeed interested, I have given you enough to find out on your own, or PM me if you'd like to continue...

[Longmire]

No, there's only one interpretation.

Perhaps in the context of your faith that might be true, but as a matter of historical evidence it isn't.

Questions have been raised about the meaning, placement, and even authorship of the entire passage that predate the Council of Trent, not to mention the ongoing interpretation of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts. Even the notion that the passage presents evidence of Jesus' ability to write is subject to interpretation of ancient languages.

Frankly I"m more interested in the common usage of the concepts and phrases from the passage which still permeate modern culture today than any specific interpretation, and I noticed Mayor Giuliani made such a reference Sunday when he was defending Donald Trump adulterous talk.

[roamer_1]

Perhaps in the context of your faith that might be true, but as a matter of historical evidence it isn't.

If you actually know what it says, no, it cannot be read any other way.

Questions have been raised about the meaning, placement, and even authorship of the entire passage that predate the Council of Trent, not to mention the ongoing interpretation of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin texts.

Alas, but replacement theology has long blinded Christianity. Most of those professing authority couldn't even tell you where to find the necessary components in the Tanakh.

Even the notion that the passage presents evidence of Jesus' ability to write is subject to interpretation of ancient languages.

Of course he could write. Hebrew children routinely began writing at around kindergarten age - it is commanded in Torah.

Frankly I"m more interested in the common usage of the concepts and phrases from the passage which still permeate modern culture today than any specific interpretation, and I noticed Mayor Giuliani made such a reference Sunday when he was defending Donald Trump adulterous talk.

Riiight... Nevermind what it actually means... This whole 'don't judge me because the Bible says so' meme is ludicrous on it's face. By far and away, the Bible calls for sober discernment and a high moral conduct out of Christians. And when one leans upon a scripture such as this to license low moral fiber, it is precisely counter to the Book's intent. Twisting the Scriptures. Wickedness.

[Longmire]

Of course he could write.

Usually assertions like this are followed by examples of said writing, yet none exists that I'm aware of despite centuries of investigation and research.

In fact one of the only references to Jesus writing anything is in the passage of John we're talking about which is subject to interpretation of ancient language.

Certainly faith would lead you to believe that Jesus could write, but the historical evidence that he could is largely absent.

[roamer_1]

Usually assertions like this are followed by examples of said writing, yet none exists that I'm aware of despite centuries of investigation and research.
In fact one of the only references to Jesus writing anything is in the passage of John we're talking about which is subject to interpretation of ancient language.
Certainly faith would lead you to believe that Jesus could write, but the historical evidence that he could is largely absent.

Nah, that he could write is nearly absolute. The near universal ignorance of the Old Testament and Hebrew culture by Christians is the problem. As I said, Torah commands it. And Yeshua was born into a very orthodox family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

This will start you out, as a reasonable overview, though it is not complete either, as generally early teaching (the aleph-bet, and etc) was taught by the mother, So the article's emphasis on male only education is necessarily not quite so.

[txradioguy]

Usually assertions like this are followed by examples of said writing, yet none exists that I'm aware of despite centuries of investigation and research.

In fact one of the only references to Jesus writing anything is in the passage of John we're talking about which is subject to interpretation of ancient language.

Certainly faith would lead you to believe that Jesus could write, but the historical evidence that he could is largely absent.

And once again a Trumpkin purposely takes a thread off topic.