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?
Let he who is without sin...
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Let he who is without sin...
Post #41[Replying to post 1 by Willum]
The truth is that the Christ didn't abrogate the commandment of God, related to adultery. Yet, it seems that many nay-sayers just want to go from an unproven accusation to the punishment stage and forget the trial! This is what's really odd…Well, the Christ wasn't falling for the same type of ploy, which the Pharisees were presenting.
Adultery was a serious crime and required the death penalty, but to be proven guilty of such a crime required: The testimony of two or three eyewitnesses (Deut. 17:6). Hence, when it came to sexual crimes, it was extremely difficult to prove the guilt of those involved…Also, in Deut. 19:15-19, the penalty for being a "false witness" was the same as the one required of the guilty. Hence, the knowledge of this law was probably the reason the "mob" left, with their tails between their legs, after the statement: He who is without sin, throw the first stone.
So, because there were no eyewitnesses, who came forward, the crime of adultery was not proven and no penalty was required! The accused was set free…
Therefore, the real purpose of the Pharisees' ploy was to trap the Christ (somewhat the same as today) into making a decision that was against God's laws and the laws of the Romans. Where, ordering the death of someone was not permitted for the Israelites, unless approved of by the Roman authorities. Or, as the Pharisees, had hoped, that the Christ would put the noose around his own neck! But, that didn't work then and it isn't going to work now…
Willum wrote: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. Or is adultery the only Commandment that can be ignored in this way?
The truth is that the Christ didn't abrogate the commandment of God, related to adultery. Yet, it seems that many nay-sayers just want to go from an unproven accusation to the punishment stage and forget the trial! This is what's really odd…Well, the Christ wasn't falling for the same type of ploy, which the Pharisees were presenting.
Adultery was a serious crime and required the death penalty, but to be proven guilty of such a crime required: The testimony of two or three eyewitnesses (Deut. 17:6). Hence, when it came to sexual crimes, it was extremely difficult to prove the guilt of those involved…Also, in Deut. 19:15-19, the penalty for being a "false witness" was the same as the one required of the guilty. Hence, the knowledge of this law was probably the reason the "mob" left, with their tails between their legs, after the statement: He who is without sin, throw the first stone.
So, because there were no eyewitnesses, who came forward, the crime of adultery was not proven and no penalty was required! The accused was set free…
Therefore, the real purpose of the Pharisees' ploy was to trap the Christ (somewhat the same as today) into making a decision that was against God's laws and the laws of the Romans. Where, ordering the death of someone was not permitted for the Israelites, unless approved of by the Roman authorities. Or, as the Pharisees, had hoped, that the Christ would put the noose around his own neck! But, that didn't work then and it isn't going to work now…
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Let he who is without sin...
Post #42[Replying to post 41 by FWI]
I know the story. That's why I was able to create the topic. In fact the speciousness of it has been touched upon in this topic, despite my very best efforts. For example, who did not know it was a ruse? The crowd? If they knew it was a ruse, they'd be guilty. The woman, she should have protested? Only the Pharisee? Only Jesus? and his disciples?
If everyone knew, it wasn't a ruse.
It was a story.
Now, if you could go ahead and read the rest of the topic, to find out what it is actually about, I'd appreciate it.
I know the story. That's why I was able to create the topic. In fact the speciousness of it has been touched upon in this topic, despite my very best efforts. For example, who did not know it was a ruse? The crowd? If they knew it was a ruse, they'd be guilty. The woman, she should have protested? Only the Pharisee? Only Jesus? and his disciples?
If everyone knew, it wasn't a ruse.
It was a story.
Now, if you could go ahead and read the rest of the topic, to find out what it is actually about, I'd appreciate it.
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 331 times
- Contact:
Post #43
Peace to you,
Mercy is not against the law. Mercy is what God desires. Christ did just as God desired, here and always.
Not to mention the fact that God did not execute Israel (not the northern Kingdom or the southern Kingdom) when "Israel" and "Judah" committed adultery against Him. He sent "Israel" away with a certificate of divorce (even though He called for her to repent and come back to Him). See all of Jeremiah 3, but here is just an excerpt:
"I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. In spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to me with all her heart, but only in pretense..." Jer 3:8-10
Should Israel ("Israel" and Judah) not have learned to show the same mercy toward others that God has shown her?
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Mercy is not against the law. Mercy is what God desires. Christ did just as God desired, here and always.
Not to mention the fact that God did not execute Israel (not the northern Kingdom or the southern Kingdom) when "Israel" and "Judah" committed adultery against Him. He sent "Israel" away with a certificate of divorce (even though He called for her to repent and come back to Him). See all of Jeremiah 3, but here is just an excerpt:
"I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. In spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to me with all her heart, but only in pretense..." Jer 3:8-10
Should Israel ("Israel" and Judah) not have learned to show the same mercy toward others that God has shown her?
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #44
[Replying to post 43 by tam]
We are not talking about mercy.
We ARE talking about how Jesus abrogated the punishment for either, adultery, bearing false witness, or potential murder.
Never mind, answered my own question...
So there are TWO perspectives here:
1. Those who knew it was a clever ruse.
2. Those who were fooled by the ruse.
Case 1: Since Jesus did not call those out for bearing false witness, he allowed them to escape being stoned to death.
Case 2. Those who did not know it was a ruse, to them he let the adulterer go free. Again, allowing a Commandment breaker to go free without penalty.
Now, to a true religious Jew, (not Christians, for example, who do not know the OT), both of these deserved stoning, as DI mentioned.
But it does bear out that, Jesus delegated punishment for all sin to those who had committed none.
Interestingly, this WOULD be the Roman government. They were pagans who could not sin against a Judaic god, they didn't believe in.
All variables explained. Topic closed.
We are not talking about mercy.
We ARE talking about how Jesus abrogated the punishment for either, adultery, bearing false witness, or potential murder.
Never mind, answered my own question...
So there are TWO perspectives here:
1. Those who knew it was a clever ruse.
2. Those who were fooled by the ruse.
Case 1: Since Jesus did not call those out for bearing false witness, he allowed them to escape being stoned to death.
Case 2. Those who did not know it was a ruse, to them he let the adulterer go free. Again, allowing a Commandment breaker to go free without penalty.
Now, to a true religious Jew, (not Christians, for example, who do not know the OT), both of these deserved stoning, as DI mentioned.
But it does bear out that, Jesus delegated punishment for all sin to those who had committed none.
Interestingly, this WOULD be the Roman government. They were pagans who could not sin against a Judaic god, they didn't believe in.
All variables explained. Topic closed.
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 331 times
- Contact:
Post #45
With mercy (and forgiveness).Willum wrote: [Replying to post 43 by tam]
We are not talking about mercy.
We ARE talking about how Jesus abrogated the punishment for either, adultery, bearing false witness, or potential murder.
Peace again to you.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #46
[Replying to post 45 by tam]
Since you can provide no examples in real life of your claims, just your Bible, you are wrong.
God forgives sin? Sin is levied on you Christians BY HIM. It's like a six year old playing with four year olds and creates debts he says they owe.
Mercy? Mercy?!
You have had 8,000 years, if the Bible is right of torture sans mercy, for someone eating a piece of fruit. That is the opposite of mercy. That is torture.
But we have resolved the topic.
Jesus, if he existed, said everything you do is OK, so long as it meets your personal standards. The Commandments and everything else God said in the OT is meaningless, and that is why they crucified him.
Since you can provide no examples in real life of your claims, just your Bible, you are wrong.
God forgives sin? Sin is levied on you Christians BY HIM. It's like a six year old playing with four year olds and creates debts he says they owe.
Mercy? Mercy?!
You have had 8,000 years, if the Bible is right of torture sans mercy, for someone eating a piece of fruit. That is the opposite of mercy. That is torture.
But we have resolved the topic.
Jesus, if he existed, said everything you do is OK, so long as it meets your personal standards. The Commandments and everything else God said in the OT is meaningless, and that is why they crucified him.
Re: Let he who is without sin...
Post #47[Replying to post 42 by Willum]
Well, then you shouldn't have implied that the Christ abrogates and/or abrogated a law of God. This is not truth! And, it doesn't matter who may disagree, especially the Christians, who for the most part have rejected the laws of God or at the least the punishments related to them. The story has nothing to do with mercy or abrogation. This I believe has been fully outlined in my earlier posting. So, since it seems that the remainder of your comments are predicated on this untrue premise, they as well, must be rejected…
Willum wrote:I know the story.
Well, then you shouldn't have implied that the Christ abrogates and/or abrogated a law of God. This is not truth! And, it doesn't matter who may disagree, especially the Christians, who for the most part have rejected the laws of God or at the least the punishments related to them. The story has nothing to do with mercy or abrogation. This I believe has been fully outlined in my earlier posting. So, since it seems that the remainder of your comments are predicated on this untrue premise, they as well, must be rejected…
-
tam
- Savant
- Posts: 6522
- Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
- Has thanked: 360 times
- Been thanked: 331 times
- Contact:
Post #48
Peace to you,
What claims are you talking about? Have you never forgiven anyone for wronging you? Do you know of no one who has ever shown mercy to someone who had wronged them?Willum wrote: [Replying to post 45 by tam]
Since you can provide no examples in real life of your claims, just your Bible, you are wrong.
God forgives sin? Sin is levied on you Christians BY HIM.
God does not make anyone sin (sin being wrongdoing; error).
Mercy? Mercy?!
You have had 8,000 years, if the Bible is right of torture sans mercy, for someone eating a piece of fruit. That is the opposite of mercy. That is torture.
The mercy that forgives sin. The mercy (and love) that gives life - even eternal life.
And if I am not permitted to use the bible without also showing real life examples, then why are you using the bible without showing real life examples of your claim? You cannot have it both ways. If you try and use the consequences of eating of the tree of knowing good (life) AND BAD (DEATH) - as some kind of an example of torture that God inflicted upon mankind, then I may use the same book to show you that God is merciful.
(And God warned Adam and Eve not to eat from that tree or they would die. Not because God would kill them if they did so, but because death is a consequence from eating of that tree. God still showed mercy to them (and their offspring) in providing a way for them (and us) to come back to God and to the Tree of Life (Christ), so that we might be redeemed from death (the death that Adam subjected us to) and have eternal life.)
But we have resolved the topic.
Jesus, if he existed, said everything you do is OK, so long as it meets your personal standards.
Nothing Christ said or did stated that adultery (or any other sin) is OK. If adultery (or any other sin) was OK, then there would have been nothing for Him to forgive.
And the one who has been forgiven much, loves much.
Peace again to you!
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #49
[Replying to post 40 by Tcg]
I am amazed.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Here let me give you some equivalent strawman he may have said:
Let he who has a pet elephant cast the first stone.
Let he who drives a Volkswagen cast the first stone.
Punishment for a violation of the Commandments has nothing to do with the character of who punishes it.
If you accept the elements of this story, you must st acknowledge this.
Again, two or three perceptions of the story.
Those who knew it was a ruse, and wanted (or did not want) punishment.
Those who were fooled and saw the punishment abrogated.
Those Greeks and Romans who though killing someone for adultery was wrong. (Like me, and hopefully like you, but not God.)
I really can’t take credit for this though. Divine Insight led me to this. Actually, on a few occasions.
I am amazed.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Here let me give you some equivalent strawman he may have said:
Let he who has a pet elephant cast the first stone.
Let he who drives a Volkswagen cast the first stone.
Punishment for a violation of the Commandments has nothing to do with the character of who punishes it.
If you accept the elements of this story, you must st acknowledge this.
Again, two or three perceptions of the story.
Those who knew it was a ruse, and wanted (or did not want) punishment.
Those who were fooled and saw the punishment abrogated.
Those Greeks and Romans who though killing someone for adultery was wrong. (Like me, and hopefully like you, but not God.)
I really can’t take credit for this though. Divine Insight led me to this. Actually, on a few occasions.
Last edited by Willum on Mon Sep 09, 2019 3:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: Let he who is without sin...
Post #50[Replying to post 47 by FWI]
I am amused that you think your interpretation of this fable is somehow better than mine.
If for some reason you believe it is, back it up. As it is, if we accept the ruse hypothesis we are left with the challenge of whom knew it.
That is bearing false witness. Jesus should have had those false witnesses stoned. But being a nobody, couldn’t actually do it, we do know it took Pilate to kill him.
Then we are left with the challenge of who was suckered. THEY saw Jesus abrogate a Commandment.
If this was true, they should have executed him for blasphemy...
What do you know?
I am amused that you think your interpretation of this fable is somehow better than mine.
If for some reason you believe it is, back it up. As it is, if we accept the ruse hypothesis we are left with the challenge of whom knew it.
That is bearing false witness. Jesus should have had those false witnesses stoned. But being a nobody, couldn’t actually do it, we do know it took Pilate to kill him.
Then we are left with the challenge of who was suckered. THEY saw Jesus abrogate a Commandment.
If this was true, they should have executed him for blasphemy...
What do you know?
