Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
The easiest way to recognize that this passage is not authentic is to see the politics of it: the passage has obviously liberal bias contrary to the rest of the Bible
Line 309: Line 309:     
An example of why it is quite likely that this issue will continue to be the subject of debate till the Lord returns, can be seen here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-25572.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:24, 26 July 2010 (EDT)
 
An example of why it is quite likely that this issue will continue to be the subject of debate till the Lord returns, can be seen here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-25572.html [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:24, 26 July 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +
===Reply===
 +
 +
I'm open-minded, but every argument above for inclusion of the adulteress story fails to withstand scrutiny.  The story lacks credibility in several respects and portrays both Jesus and the crowd completely out of character.  Stoning wasn't even the punishment for adultery at the time.  Over hundreds of years, it is to be expected that some vandals would insert things into the Bible, just as is done today with a wiki.
 +
 +
The easiest way to recognize that this passage is not authentic is to see the politics of it:  the passage has obviously liberal bias contrary to the rest of the Bible.  If you want to avoid the political angle, then you can pick any other test of authenticity and the conclusion is the same.
 +
 +
Pick what you think is your strongest point above and let's address it. 
    
== References ==
 
== References ==
    
<references/>
 
<references/>
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,426

edits

Navigation menu