Today I went to church and listened to a sermon about how we can know who Jesus was/is by what is recorded in the Bible. The sermon was directed towards "filtering" through the stories we've heard about Jesus as opposed to what is actually written about Jesus to tell us who he was/is.
So irony of ironies (possibly?), the pastor chose the story of the woman who committed adultery in John 7:53-8:11 to demonstrate how this scripture is showing us one of the many aspects of Jesus that would be a reliable source in order to know how to follow Jesus. The whole rest of the sermon went on to extol the virtues of Jesus, using this story as an example.
Now I have read this story was added and inserted into the Book of John centuries after Jesus' ministry by scribes around 400 CE and was not originally there.
So on the way out I questioned the pastor as to why it was referred to as a truth that really happened and I was told that he doesn't "go there" with this particular story.....I'm still not sure if he believes it was later inserted or not because time in the line at the end of the service did not permit a more in depth answer.
So I'm curious to ask the ministers on this site in particular but would like to also hear from everyone.......
1.) Is this story about Jesus true IYO?
2.) If not should it still be used in church as a "Jesus" story? Why or why not?
3.) If it's not true and we continue to relate this story as true because it teaches us something.....shouldn't it be stated it is a fictional story to demonstrate how we picture Jesus' grace to be?
So irony of ironies (possibly?), the pastor chose the story of the woman who committed adultery in John 7:53-8:11 to demonstrate how this scripture is showing us one of the many aspects of Jesus that would be a reliable source in order to know how to follow Jesus. The whole rest of the sermon went on to extol the virtues of Jesus, using this story as an example.
Now I have read this story was added and inserted into the Book of John centuries after Jesus' ministry by scribes around 400 CE and was not originally there.
So on the way out I questioned the pastor as to why it was referred to as a truth that really happened and I was told that he doesn't "go there" with this particular story.....I'm still not sure if he believes it was later inserted or not because time in the line at the end of the service did not permit a more in depth answer.
So I'm curious to ask the ministers on this site in particular but would like to also hear from everyone.......
1.) Is this story about Jesus true IYO?
2.) If not should it still be used in church as a "Jesus" story? Why or why not?
3.) If it's not true and we continue to relate this story as true because it teaches us something.....shouldn't it be stated it is a fictional story to demonstrate how we picture Jesus' grace to be?