Jesus IS a sinner. Therefore an unacceptable sacrifice

[Avoice]

Jesus is a sinner. By his actions he proves this.

In the story of the adultress woman caught in the very act.
The law requires her to be stoned. Jesus faces a problem here. He has to somehow save her from being punished for her sin yet not break the law.

Jesus tells those standing by that whoever has not sinned cast the first stone. One by one they all walked away not throwing a stone at her. The law states no such stipulation but ets just do it Jesus' way. When it says Jesus and the woman were left standing alone. Now its jesus' turn.

If Jesus is sinless he is to throw a stone
If Jesus is a sinner he wont throw a stone.

What does Jesus say? NEITHER do I condemn you. He tells her to go and to not do it again.

He does not throw a stone. If he were sinless he was to stone her. He said so.

If indeed he were sinless up until this time he became a sinner by not keeping the law by throwing a stone at her.

Throwing a stone or not throwing a stone either proves he is a sinner or makes him a sinner.
And being a sinner would be an unacceptable blemish. Unfit for sacrifice. Thats if God was even into throwing babies in fires, virgins in volcanos or nailing a man onto a tree/ cross in the first place. At a place called Golgotha....the skull? Unacceptable location even.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 1 by Avoice]

Jesus was setting the foundation for the new covenant, which is that of grace, mercy, compassion, and FORGIVENESS..all of which was exhibited in that beautiful illustration in John 8:1-11.

What does God say in Exodus 33:19?

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. I will have compassion on whom I have compassion"

Newsflash: Jesus is God.

He had mercy/compassion on the woman. Nuff said. But then again, John 8:1-11 isn't in the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel and some have argued that it shouldn't be in there.

*Shrugs*

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 7 by Danmark]

A great teacher? Of what?

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 5 by William]

Regarding being tricked - i was merely responding to someone who used the word tricked.

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 5 by William]

On what evidence do you base your belief that the one called Jesus is judge? Or has any authority at all?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 7 by Danmark]

A great teacher? Of what?

This question suggests you haven't read Matthew, Mark, or Luke. One need not believe in the divinity of Jesus to recognize him as a teacher of ethics and human nature or the brilliance and efficacy of his teaching methods. He employed both parables, humor, and the Socratic method.

Just as religionists go wrong by believing in magic and other forms of the supernatural, anti religionists go awry by condemning or denying anything and everything of value simply because it is contained in the collection of books called 'The Bible.'

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 4 by Tcg]

All they did is ask jesus what he thinks they should do. Why is that a problem? They said that the law states she should be stoned but wanted to know what he had to say. Why would jesus thought wrongly of that? His whole sermon on the plain was telling people what the law says or what it said in old times but now he says______.

You imply that she wasnt even guilty of the crime. That they made it up. If that was true then then jesus woukd have known that and not have played their game. Scripture says snswer not a fool according to his folly. If they were lying then hes guilty for causing undue suffering to the woman standing there who thinks she might die any minute.

If she werent guilty Jesus wouldn't have told her to sin no more.

Jesus sinned no matter how you try and twist it

[Avoice]

If jesus is a sinless Messiah whom Christians say he is; and he sacrificed once for all sins, then why in the end times does the Messiah offer a sacrifice for HIMSELF and one for the nation?

If he is sinless he doesn't need to offer a sacrifice for himself. I thought he died once for all sins That the sacrificial system was done away with when jesus showed up? That the laws were pass? Why then will the messiah keep the feast of taberbacles in the end times. All nations will keep it or face consequences.. Feast of Tabernacles,? Why, that is out of the law...old testament. Animal sacrifices? Why thats old testanent.
I thought jesus fulfilled the law? If he did none of this would be needed.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 4 by Tcg]

All they did is ask jesus what he thinks they should do. Why is that a problem? They said that the law states she should be stoned but wanted to know what he had to say. Why would jesus thought wrongly of that? His whole sermon on the plain was telling people what the law says or what it said in old times but now he says______.

You imply that she wasnt even guilty of the crime. That they made it up. If that was true then then jesus woukd have known that and not have played their game. Scripture says snswer not a fool according to his folly. If they were lying then hes guilty for causing undue suffering to the woman standing there who thinks she might die any minute.

If she werent guilty Jesus wouldn't have told her to sin no more.

Jesus sinned no matter how you try and twist it

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Jesus saved her life. And you call that a sin.

[Divine Insight]

Jesus is a sinner. By his actions he proves this.

In the story of the adultress woman caught in the very act.
The law requires her to be stoned. Jesus faces a problem here. He has to somehow save her from being punished for her sin yet not break the law.

Jesus tells those standing by that whoever has not sinned cast the first stone. One by one they all walked away not throwing a stone at her. The law states no such stipulation but ets just do it Jesus' way. When it says Jesus and the woman were left standing alone. Now its jesus' turn.

If Jesus is sinless he is to throw a stone
If Jesus is a sinner he wont throw a stone.

What does Jesus say? NEITHER do I condemn you. He tells her to go and to not do it again.

He does not throw a stone. If he were sinless he was to stone her. He said so.

If indeed he were sinless up until this time he became a sinner by not keeping the law by throwing a stone at her.

Throwing a stone or not throwing a stone either proves he is a sinner or makes him a sinner.
And being a sinner would be an unacceptable blemish. Unfit for sacrifice. Thats if God was even into throwing babies in fires, virgins in volcanos or nailing a man onto a tree/ cross in the first place. At a place called Golgotha....the skull? Unacceptable location even.

I agree with Avoice. This story is highly problematic. To begin with it's absurd to claim that only sinless men should stone the woman to death. Jesus proved right there that he does not understand the Biblical Law.

It can't be true that only sinless men should stone the adulteress. If that were the case it would have made no sense for Yahweh to have commanded mortal men to stone sinners to death in the first place knowing that all mortal men are sinners. And in Christianity we can't have any mortal men being sin free lest Jesus would be nothing special.

So this is a grave contradiction in the New Testament. This is a story where Jesus is supposedly be tested by the religious authorities to see if he knows the law, and the results demonstrate that Jesus was totally clueless. So if it was the purpose of the religious leaders to test Jesus knowledge of the law then they succeeded in exposing his ignorance.

I also agree with Avoice that if the law states that sinless people are to do the stoning then for Jesus to be in compliance with the law he would have had to have cast the first stone. But he didn't. So he would have been in violation of Yahweh's law. Thus making him a sinner.

The New Testament stories are filled with contradictions like this. Whoever made this story up was himself clueless. This story alone shows that these stories are made up and never happened. No religious authorities ever brought a confirmed adulteress to Jesus asking Jesus what they should do with the woman.

What is far more likely to have happened in reality is that Jesus was arguing with the religious leaders and this hypothetical question came up. Jesus told them that only those who are without sin should stone the woman to death. They realized the folly of his answer, told him that he doesn't understand Biblical law and walked away.

But then these false rumors that Jesus somehow defeated the religious leaders with superior wisdom were created. Clearly these rumors are wrong.

We can know this for a fact, because it would have made no sense for Yahweh to have ever told mortal men to stone sinners to death if he had only wanted sinless humans to do it.

So this story in the New Testament demonstrates its fallacy. I'm not sure if this would make Jesus a sinner since there most likely never was an adulterous in the first place. The whole thing was most likely just a hypothetical argument between Jesus and the Pharisees. And the Pharisees actually won this argument, unlike the story claims. Jesus was wrong. It can't be that only sinless people are to stone sinners to death. And if Jesus was right, then he would have been obligated to do it anyway lest he would have been breaking God's law.

In fact, for Jesus to have "fulfilled" the law he could have had to go around stoning all sinners to death. This story tells us that he wouldn't obey Yahweh's law and even stone a single sinner to death. So Jesus was not only a rebel against this religion, but he apparently refused to obey Yahweh as well.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Tcg]

All they did is ask jesus what he thinks they should do. Why is that a problem? They said that the law states she should be stoned but wanted to know what he had to say. Why would jesus thought wrongly of that? His whole sermon on the plain was telling people what the law says or what it said in old times but now he says______.

You imply that she wasnt even guilty of the crime. That they made it up. If that was true then then jesus woukd have known that and not have played their game. Scripture says snswer not a fool according to his folly. If they were lying then hes guilty for causing undue suffering to the woman standing there who thinks she might die any minute.

If she werent guilty Jesus wouldn't have told her to sin no more.

Jesus sinned no matter how you try and twist it

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Jesus saved her life. And you call that a sin.

If you save someone's life by refusing to obey Yahweh's commandments, then yes, in this religion that would indeed be a sin.

You're thinking like a secularist. You are refusing to agree with Yahweh's morality and deciding for yourself what you would consider to be a "sin".