nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story (view source)
Revision as of 09:53, April 8, 2008
, 09:53, April 8, 2008Most (not all) do reject it
:::::: Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adultress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adultress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that ''most'' scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is ''true'', just not put there by John. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
== What Constitutes Gospel? ==
== What Constitutes Gospel? ==