Let he who is without sin...

[Willum]

Christians are fond of the tales where Jesus (Joshua) abrogates the Judaic punishment for adultery with the wisdom... “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.�

Now adultery was one of the Commandments, and like the others, violation of it demanded death, according to God.

But some guy named Josh abrogated it with a bit of Hellenic wisdom.
Odd, to say the least.

Judaic law said the adulterer should be stoned, if I were Judaic, I wouldn’t see the problem.

But let’s expand the reasoning, shall we?
Say someone worships another god?
Should they be killed? Or should only those without sin kill them?
How about bearing false witness?
Should their sin be abrogated by “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone�?

How about murder?
Or is adultery the only Commandment that can be ignored in this way?

How does this all work out?
How does one address the hypocracy?

[marco]

But then, now about the other Commandments? Do we also get to ignore them, because no one is without sin?
You see this makes sense only to gentiles. It is abomination to Jews and the logical.

I can only repeat what I believe was the intention of the biblical character Christ: to show mercy while yet complying. Had he said unambiguously: "Don't stone her. It is barbaric," then he would have been condemned for going against the law.

"Form a neat line, and the person at the top of the line should be the one who's without sin and he can start things in motion. Get your stones ready. Off you go."

And lo they formed a line and the lady was laid low, for there was a Pharisee who saw himself as sinless.

Luckily that didn't happen, as Christ figured it wouldn't. But since it was a possibility, for Pharisees may well have seen themselves as sinless, one cannot accuse Jesus of denying the law. The format of words used, as I said, is clever and subtle.

He was not formulating some Kantian rule - " Always act so that you may take it that the maxim of your action might become a universal law." He was simply refusing to be tied down, and I think he succeeded.

[JJ50]

No one is perfect we all have faults and failings, including all the Biblical characters.

[marco]

Jesus' response, as far as I can tell, isn't some grand declaration that stoning is wrong or that adultery is okay. It's simply a statement that in this one case, stoning would not be justified.

There is nothing in what he says that condemns stoning. He is inviting folk to stone her and he does NOT restrict the stone throwing to sinless people. What he says is that the person to start the execution should be without sin himself. He's not involved in discerning guilt or sinlessness: he is inviting someone to declare he is sinless. That is a calculated risk for it relies on self-assessment.

Another point is that it was not Christ's job to pronounce sentence or execute someone; he was asked for an opinion, obviously to put him at odds with the law, and he cleverly exercised compassion and due respect for the law.


I don't believe an adulteress was ever brought to him: the story, like the one about Satan in the wilderness, is just an illustration of Christ's Solomonic wisdom. The writers are accumulating points for Jesus.

[marco]

No one is perfect we all have faults and failings, including all the Biblical characters.

That is objectively true but I suspect many - especially in the time of Christ - saw themselves as paragons of perfection. Take Luke's Pharisee: "The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector."

I bet he would have cast the first stone.

[Willum]

[Replying to Tcg]

You’ll forgive me if I, having already rejected your hypothesis in the assumption, I don’t accept it?
It simply makes no contextual sense, despite being a popular apologist argument.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 31 by marco]

Aye, you know the law is barbaric, I know the law is barbaric, any Roman or Greek in Jesus’ audience knows it is barbaric.

However, what you and any gentile won’t know is that God decreed that stoning was the appropriate punishment for adultery, therefore every Jews in the audience would know God decreed that she be stoned.

So now that we know he was not speaking to a modern or pagan us, but Jews, who have one of God’s 10 Commandments saying “stone her�...
ah never mind, obviously, no one can answer the topic, as it has no answer.

Jesus answered the original problem with a blasphemy, that, universally applied to all blasphemy.
Which is what many Christians do indeed claim, as seen in other posts: Christians don’t need to follow any OT laws, except those Jesus stated.

Those same as would be approved by the Roman government, amazingly.

[marco]

Jesus answered the original problem with a blasphemy, that, universally applied to all blasphemy.

I understand the point you are making, Willum, but Jesus did not go against the law, far less blaspheme. He was not a high priest and had no authority to command one way or another. He did not say: "Do not stone her."


I have pointed out the operative word is FIRST, which implies one in a series. Jesus is saying: "Yes, we know what the prescribed punishment is, so go ahead. Do it. Start with the man who is sinless and carry on."

There are many areas where we can weigh Jesus in the balance and find him deficient. I don't think this hypothetical instance is one. It shows him as able to juggle keeping the law with compassion, not an easy thing to do in biblical times.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg]

You’ll forgive me if I, having already rejected your hypothesis in the assumption, I don’t accept it?
It simply makes no contextual sense, despite being a popular apologist argument.

There is nothing to forgive you of, we simply disagree.

You can disregard my analysis, but to do so because you claim it is a popular apologist argument is an empty reason. You've given no reasoned argument to reject it.

Your argument is based on the idea that Jesus' pronouncement has a universal reach and yet there is nothing in the text that supports that idea. It was a one shot deal that applies to this situation only.


Tcg

[Willum]

[Replying to post 38 by Tcg]

I can ignore your analysis, because the topic assumes it away.
Like a discussion about the corpuscular theory of light. Understand it, don’t find it fits the data, look beyond.

Speaking of this - one of the great things about truth, is, as you call it, universal reach.

As I am getting tired of repeating, Jesus dismissed a Commandment with a strawman.

Why isn’t that strawman applicable to all laws of God?

To repeat the topic,
“Let’s expand the reasoning, shall we?�

You have said “no.� That’s fine. But if you do not wish to discuss this topic, the rules say, ‘start your own.’

[Tcg]

As I am getting tired of repeating, Jesus dismissed a Commandment with a strawman.

It takes a bit more than simple repetition to make a point. Nothing in the text indicates that Jesus dismissed a Commandment with a strawman.


Tcg