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?

[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.

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.

Notice that I responded to your statement in post #71 "Just because someone CAN do something does not mean that they MUST do something."

The command does NOT say 'you can' -- it clearly says "Shall surely be put to death". Does that sound like 'you can put them to death'?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[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.

I have no idea what you are trying to say with this sentence.

"Yes"... what?

"This"... what?

"It"... what?

What "flies in the logic of several poster"?

How does this logic apply to the other Commandments?

I responded to that in my first post on this thread here:

viewtopic.php?p=978008#978008

I even gave an example from the OT where God DIVORCES Israel for her adultery (rather than an execution), which is in line with what Christ said about adultery and divorce.

viewtopic.php?p=978164#978164

Please be considerate enough to read the topic and the posts in relation to it.

As pointed out, I did just that.

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.

I imagine it might be a little frustrating to be shown that your accusations are entirely false as well.



Peace again to you.

[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.

Notice that I responded to your statement in post #71 "Just because someone CAN do something does not mean that they MUST do something."

The command does NOT say 'you can' -- it clearly says "Shall surely be put to death". Does that sound like 'you can put them to death'?

I was not talking about the command in Leviticus, Zzyzx. I was talking about what Christ said. Which is what Avoice was talking about, and I was responding to Avoice and his claim.



Peace again.

[Zzyzx]

.

I was not talking about the command in Leviticus, Zzyzx. I was talking about what Christ said. Which is what Avoice was talking about, and I was responding to Avoice and his claim.

Without the command in Leviticus, what Jesus reportedly said has NO meaning. There would be no command to stone adulteresses (to be broken by Jesus).

What gave a wandering preacher the authority to add the condition 'without sin cast first stone'?

[tam]

.

I was not talking about the command in Leviticus, Zzyzx. I was talking about what Christ said. Which is what Avoice was talking about, and I was responding to Avoice and his claim.

Without the command in Leviticus, what Jesus reportedly said has NO meaning. There would be no command to stone adulteresses (to be broken by Jesus).

What gave a wandering preacher the authority to add the condition 'without sin cast first stone'?

God did.

"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."


And before anyone goes and says 'this is the Christianity and Apologetics section of the forum and you need to demonstrate outside of the bible that God actually said this"... well, then you (general you) need to demonstrate outside of the bible that God gave a law to stone adulterers to begin with.


But this is going beyond what I asked you about. You spoke about the 'word play' of 'apologists' to Willum, who was criticizing my posts. And yet I can't seem to get a straight answer to my question about any word play in my posts. I consider that an answer in and of itself, and am moving on.




Peace again to you.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 82 by tam]

Pay attention to what I and other posters have said.
Re-read the OP.
Try to answer the concepts raised directly, instead of deflecting them with what you heard in Sunday school, and you will be able to understand what is being commented on.

I think.

[Zzyzx]

.

What gave a wandering preacher the authority to add the condition 'without sin cast first stone'?

God did.

Correction: Matthew (whoever that was) claimed in 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Luke (whoever that was) added in 9:35 that from a cloud a voice said “listen to him�

Did the people Jesus was supposedly addressing accept him as THE Son of God? It almost sounds as though they doubted that – and they were supposedly on the scene.

How can people thousands of years later be so certain when people right there didn’t seem to know any such thing?

And before anyone goes and says 'this is the Christianity and Apologetics section of the forum and you need to demonstrate outside of the bible that God actually said this"... well, then you (general you) need to demonstrate outside of the bible that God gave a law to stone adulterers to begin with.

I seriously doubt that any gods said anything. However, some people claim to KNOW what their favorite god said thousands of years ago. Perhaps it is magic?

[tam]

Peace to you,

.

What gave a wandering preacher the authority to add the condition 'without sin cast first stone'?

God did.

Correction: Matthew (whoever that was) claimed in 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Luke (whoever that was) added in 9:35 that from a cloud a voice said “listen to him�

Luke did not add anything "in". You are referencing two separate occasions:

1 - After Christ was baptized by John the Baptist:

Matthew 3:16, 17

As soon as [Jesus] was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased!�

Mark 1:10, 11

As soon as [Jesus] came up out of the water, He saw the heavens breaking open and the spirit descending on Him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.�


Luke 3:21, 22

When all the people were being baptized, [Jesus] was baptized too. And as He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in a bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.�



2 - Later at the transfiguration:

Matthew 17:5

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"


Luke 9:34, 35

While Peter was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. And a voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, whom I have chosen; listen to Him!�


Mark 9:7

Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is My beloved Son. Listen to Him!�

Did the people Jesus was supposedly addressing accept him as THE Son of God? It almost sounds as though they doubted that – and they were supposedly on the scene.

The first event was at His baptism at the very start of His ministry; it was an announcement of who He is. And the only people on scene at the second event were Christ and three of His apostles. They knew He was the Messiah (God had revealed it to them). Peter had previously stated that He (Jaheshua) was the Christ, the Son of God. Christ announced that this had been revealed to him by His Father in heaven. That is how people (then or two thousand years later) can be so certain. Some of the apostles stated this in faith from the start as well (Nathanial for instance, at John 1:49)



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

[Avoice]

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

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?

Was Jesus acting to uphold the law or skirt the law,? If he had no intention on fulfilling the law by having her stoned then it is just a story to make him look merciful. What's the purpose of the story. Is their justice? 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?

Those readers who are married. If your spouse cheats on you should they get away with it? Want jesus to tell your spouse to get back in your bed as if nothing happened? And all Jesus said was don't do it sgain. Is that justice? Is that acceptable to you? Just like nithing happened. Caught in the very act. Is that justice? Just dont do it again honey. Come on!! Stoned might be too much for you. But a slap on the wrist is okay? Christians talk mercy but in reality theyd tell Jesus he wasnt being fair to the spouse that was cheated on
" Go and just don't sin sgain" yeah...sure. that is acceptable to you.

Those who see this story as positive only see it from the position of the sinner caught in adultry. Im not accusing anyone. But if you are a cheating spouse then this story is great. Cheaters like getting away with it.

Jesus says (not verbatim) that if someone slaps you on one cheek let him slap the other one too. Let the cheater cheat on you again. No consequences for their infidelity

[Avoice]

[Replying to post 88 by tam]

A voice from heaven said? A voice? Whose voice?
This is my son in whom i am well pleased? Who is the son? There were many there. The voice didn't point.

Soooo...an anonymous voice talking about an unidentified person. Thats all it us

And on the mountain you assume the VOICE meant Jesus. But the story said Moses was in that cloud too. Again the voice didn't point. But we know with certsinty that God said listen to Moses. So if you want to believe that story and that the voice is God then he was talking about Moses.