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?

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 90 by Avoice]

Anyone hearing voices in their head should seek the help of a psychiatrist.

[1213]

…If he wasnt a sinner then he became a sinner by not stoning the woman….

Where it is said that forgiving is a sin?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 89 by Avoice]

Yes, everyone seems to be looking anywhere but to the gist of your post.
Jesus does indeed support the bad people in this... and the point of the post is how this applied elsewhere.

I suppose between the "Golden Rule," which sets every individual up as the supreme justice and this clause of "letting those without sin" punish, the religion really is a chaff-filled suit.

It sounds good, tricks many, but Christianity has no substance.

At least it has no champions that can defend it by doing more than distracting from the issue.

[Avoice]

Rather that show Jesus as righteous it shows him as defiant. He did not do what God commanded. Whether we like it or not, she should have been stoned.

That may sound harsh but it shouldnt bother us unless we plan on being unfaithful. Lets be honest, knowing we'll go to the gas chamber or get life in prison keeps lots of people from killing us. [/img]

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 71 by tam]

I know jesus didn't say they HAD to stone her. Typical of the Christian testament. It manages to be just vague enough.

His words were exactly as He meant them to be; and He saved her life with them. He did exactly what God wanted Him to do: be merciful.


You cannot be merciful to a person who has done nothing in NEED of mercy.

No i was fully aware what was said and how it was said.

Then we can both agree that Christ Jaheshua was not admitting that He was a sinner, when He did not stone the woman. Yes?

The point i didn't make which i should have was that the story is pointless if we are to assume she wouldn't be stoned if found guilty. Why would [jesus] even suggest he who is without sin cast the first stone if that wasnt the objective?

I never suggested that she would not have been stoned if found guilty - except that Christ saved her life and set a good example for the rest of us to follow as well; in addition to showing us what God TRULY wants.


The story (should) teach those who are listening NOT to judge. None have the right TO judge, not without bringing judgment down upon themselves as well. Because all sin.

Judge not or you will be judged.

By the measure you use against others, it will be used against you.

Forgive and you will be forgiven.

Be merciful and you will be shown mercy.

The story wants the reader to believe she avoided being stoned becsuse they were sinners. So what does that teach? That the more sinners we can produce the less punishment can be dealt us?

No... it teaches mercy. It teaches people to look in the mirror, rather than pointing fingers at others. That is what the law was MEANT to be - a mirror, not a pointing finger.

Was Jesus acting to uphold the law or skirt the law,?

Jaheshua surpassed the (written) law - with love, and showed mercy, which is what God desires. Love is the law of God, and against love there is no law. Love covers over all sins (Proverbs 10:12)!


Remember, Jeremiah said that the lying pen of the scribes has mishandled the law:

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of [the LORD]," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" Jeremiah 8:8

**


But besides even that, there is the following, from post 43 (in case you missed it):



*****
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?

******

Sure, sinners love seeing the guilty go free. But what about justice for the cheated on spouse? Let the filth crawl back in your bed?

Did Israel not cheat on God? According to the scriptures, she most certainly did. (Not that Christendom has the right to judge Israel for this, because Christendom has done the same thing.)


But if God had executed Israel for her adulteries, instead of divorcing her, how could she ever repent or return to Him?

Those readers who are married. If your spouse cheats on you should they get away with it?

The choices are not: let them get away with it or execute them.

The choices are: divorce them or remain with them. It is entirely up to that person.

And even if your spouse allows you to remain, this comes with consequence. Trust has been broken and will need to be rebuilt (sometimes it cannot be; sometimes it can be... but that is their business).

Want jesus to tell your spouse to get back in your bed as if nothing happened?

Strawman. This did not occur. Christ (Jaheshua) said that adultery is grounds for divorce (and a certificate of divorce is what God gave to Israel for her adultery).

Those who see this story as positive only see it from the position of the sinner caught in adultry.

Then Israel should be able to see this as a positive story. Everyone should really, because everyone sins at some point and I assume most hope to be forgiven.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."



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

[Zzyzx]

.

I never suggested that she would not have been stoned if found guilty - except that Christ saved her life and set a good example for the rest of us to follow as well; in addition to showing us what God TRULY wants.

The 'example' = those who break the law shall not be punished as long as anyone involved 'sins' (which all supposedly do).

According to what is written about 'God', he does not appear to agree (i.e. firewood on the Sabbath, etc)

[Willum]

[Replying to post 95 by tam]

His words were exactly as He meant them to be; and He saved her life with them. He did exactly what God wanted Him to do: be merciful.

No, since you can't be bothered to read the Commandments - yes, mercy is a property, but it does not apply to the Commandments, which have rather strict punishments.
Death.

I don't understand what you don't understand about this.

Then we can both agree that Christ Jaheshua was not admitting that He was a sinner, when He did not stone the woman. Yes?

OFF TOPIC, would you please show some respect for the point of discussion, MAKE UP YOUR OWN!

The rest of your post shows you have a completely unrealistic understanding of the Old and New Testaments.

Completely unrealistic. They are not humanistic religions, but may be described by the OT and NT. Neither of which you seem to have an even reasonable understanding of.

Please, if you are going to bring your own personal views of a wide-spread religion, with definite constraints. OPEN YOUR OWN POST.

[1213]

… He did not do what God commanded. Whether we like it or not, she should have been stoned. [/img]

I accept that as your personal desire, but not as Biblical teaching. By what I see, Jesus obeyed these instructions well:

Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9
I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is living with him. You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
"You shall not spread a false report. Don't join your hand with the wicked to be a malicious witness. You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; neither shall you testify in court to side with a multitude to pervert justice; neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause.
Exodus 23:1-3
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he who is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deuteronomy 17:6

Interesting thing is also, if Jews had the right to judge people to death, why they didn’t judge Jesus, but gave him for Romans?

[1213]

….yes, mercy is a property, but it does not apply to the Commandments, which have rather strict punishments….

Are you greater than Zechariah and God? Or should we rather believe in Biblical teachings:

Thus has Yahweh of Hosts spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zechariah 7:9

[Willum]

[Replying to 1213]

Heck yeah. Far better than an imaginary friend and/or an imaginary disciple.
I can type, reason, I was not born a sinner, nor do I sin.
In every way you can name I am, practically, measurably and demonstratably, better.