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?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 67 by tam]

Sorry tam, your reasoning is specious.

I'm sorry, Willum, but you are incorrect. Avoice's reasoning is what is specious on this topic.

Just because someone CAN do something does not mean that they MUST do something. Therefore, just because Christ COULD have cast the first stone (being without sin Himself) does not mean that He HAD to cast the first stone. Therefore, just because Christ chose not to cast a stone does NOT mean that He was a sinner. He COULD have cast a stone, but He chose to show mercy to that woman instead.

Avoice has added yet another objection to the story.

His second post holds the same faulty objection.

PS - I'll go out on a limb and state Avoice knows full well the difference between 'can' and 'must,' thus enervating your objection further.

If Avoice knows the difference between 'can' and 'must', he did not apply that knowledge to his reasoning here.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Willum]

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

Well you can explain to him, and the forum how his English has been so faulty.
However, you have balanced your belief in what is ostensibly a fairytale vs his command of English.

I for one back someone’s comprehension of English. It, is certainly backed up.

[Zzyzx]

.

However, you have balanced your belief in what is ostensibly a fairytale vs his command of English.

Word play is the mainstay of Apologetics. Let's notice how often such 'arguments' hang on preferred definitions, translations, 'interpretations' -- as though to say 'You pagans don't understand the words but I do.'

[tam]

Peace to you Zzyzx,

.

However, you have balanced your belief in what is ostensibly a fairytale vs his command of English.

Word play is the mainstay of Apologetics. Let's notice how often such 'arguments' hang on preferred definitions, translations, 'interpretations' -- as though to say 'You pagans don't understand the words but I do.'

Zzyzx, did you see any word play in my posts 71 and 67... the two posts that Willum is referring to? Was there something wrong in my reasoning? Perhaps you could clarify that for myself and for Willum (and perhaps also for the reader)?


Thank you!


Peace again to you!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to post 69 by EarthScienceguy]

The text doesn't tell us why they brought only the woman. The man might have gotten away from them, or they might have stoned him already. In any case, the law didn't say that one wasn't to be put to death if only one was apprehended. If two people murdered someone and only one was caught, the law wouldn't spare him; presumably the same would be true for adultery.

It's also interesting that Jesus doesn't ask them about the man, so the man doesn't seem to have been an issue with him.

[Zzyzx]

.

Zzyzx, did you see any word play in my posts 71 and 67... the two posts that Willum is referring to? Was there something wrong in my reasoning? Perhaps you could clarify that for myself and for Willum (and perhaps also for the reader)?

Previously you said:

Just because someone CAN do something does not mean that they MUST do something. Therefore, just because Christ COULD have cast the first stone (being without sin Himself) does not mean that He HAD to cast the first stone. Therefore, just because Christ chose not to cast a stone does NOT mean that He was a sinner. He COULD have cast a stone, but He chose to show mercy to that woman instead.

Killing an adulteress is NOT optional. It is commanded – shall surely be put to death

Leviticus 20:10 King James Version (KJV) And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Is there some way to word around a direct command to make it optional?

[tam]

Peace to you,

.

Zzyzx, did you see any word play in my posts 71 and 67... the two posts that Willum is referring to? Was there something wrong in my reasoning? Perhaps you could clarify that for myself and for Willum (and perhaps also for the reader)?

Previously you said:

Just because someone CAN do something does not mean that they MUST do something. Therefore, just because Christ COULD have cast the first stone (being without sin Himself) does not mean that He HAD to cast the first stone. Therefore, just because Christ chose not to cast a stone does NOT mean that He was a sinner. He COULD have cast a stone, but He chose to show mercy to that woman instead.

Killing an adulteress is NOT optional. It is commanded – shall surely be put to death

Leviticus 20:10 King James Version (KJV) And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Is there some way to word around a direct command to make it optional?

But we were not talking about anything written in the OT. That is another discussion.

We were talking about Christ and His words as recorded here in John 8.


My questions to you were in regard to the discussion taking place in this thread between Avoice, Willum, and myself.


Avoice's argument (which is what I responded to) is here:

viewtopic.php?p=985989#985989

Avoice said that Christ must be a sinner because Christ said that the one without sin could cast the first stone, and yet Christ did not cast a stone at the woman.

I pointed out that this is a flawed argument - it is not a logical argument - because what a person can do and what a person must do are two different things. Both "non-believer" and "believer" alike should be able to understand that, yes?




Peace again to you.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 77 by tam]

Yes, and this has been pointed out to you by several that it flies in the logic of several poster, and does nothing to elaborate the OP.

How does this logic apply to the other Commandments?
Please be considerate enough to read the topic and the posts in relation to it.

It is very frustrating to read non-sequitur posts because a person is talking about what they learned last week in Sunday school for the upteenth time, instead of understanding to and contributing to the topic at hand.

[Zzyzx]

.

But we were not talking about anything written in the OT. That would be another discussion altogether.

What law from the New Testament relates to stoning of adulteresses?

If I am not mistaken, that comes from ONLY the OT -- so its discussion CANNOT avoid involving the OT -- wherein the death was commanded.

"Shall surely be put to death" is NOT a suggestion or an option.

[tam]

.

But we were not talking about anything written in the OT. That would be another discussion altogether.

What law from the New Testament relates to stoning of adulteresses?

If I am not mistaken, that comes from ONLY the OT -- so its discussion CANNOT avoid involving the OT -- wherein the death was commanded.

"Shall surely be put to death" is NOT a suggestion or an option.

I linked to the argument that I was responding to in my previous post. You can look and respond to that - or not - as you choose.


Peace again to you.