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?

[marco]

Jesus asked the others, who wanted to punish her, in a very unique way that highlighted the sins they are have committed and do they want the just punishment they deserve for their own sins. They 'politely' declined. Like all of us they prefer the not now but later option.

In fact he did not say that stoning is wrong, which was rather clever. He invited them to stone her and the one without sin would start. Clearly nobody was able to stand first in line without arrogantly assessing himself as sinless. Thus while upholding the law, Jesus circumvented it.

Some might add that at this point a condemnation of stoning was appropriate, but Jesus obviously felt otherwise. His time had not yet come.

[Athetotheist]

Jesus asked the others, who wanted to punish her, in a very unique way that highlighted the sins they are have committed and do they want the just punishment they deserve for their own sins. They 'politely' declined. Like all of us they prefer the not now but later option.

In fact he did not say that stoning is wrong, which was rather clever. He invited them to stone her and the one without sin would start. Clearly nobody was able to stand first in line without arrogantly assessing himself as sinless. Thus while upholding the law, Jesus circumvented it.

Some might add that at this point a condemnation of stoning was appropriate, but Jesus obviously felt otherwise. His time had not yet come.

Actually, not only did he violate the law by not applying the command in Deut. 4:2 to the command in 22:22, he violated his own take on the law in Matthew 5:19 by teaching others [with his example] to deviate from the law.

[marco]

Actually, not only did he violate the law by not applying the command in Deut. 4:2 to the command in 22:22, he violated his own take on the law in Matthew 5:19 by teaching others [with his example] to deviate from the law.

It was not up to him to conduct an application of the law. Had he said: "Do not stone her" he would have been guilty of advising against the law. In fact he INVITED people to stone her, and cleverly suggested that the man without sin should have the privilege of casting the first stone. The effect was that the woman, on this occasion, was not stoned, but not because Jesus advised against stoning.

Arguments about who is without sin are technically irrelevant. In a court when asked: "Did you tell them NOT to stone?" the answer would have been "no."

[Athetotheist]

Actually, not only did he violate the law by not applying the command in Deut. 4:2 to the command in 22:22, he violated his own take on the law in Matthew 5:19 by teaching others [with his example] to deviate from the law.

It was not up to him to conduct an application of the law. Had he said: "Do not stone her" he would have been guilty of advising against the law. In fact he INVITED people to stone her, and cleverly suggested that the man without sin should have the privilege of casting the first stone. The effect was that the woman, on this occasion, was not stoned, but not because Jesus advised against stoning.

Arguments about who is without sin are technically irrelevant. In a court when asked: "Did you tell them NOT to stone?" the answer would have been "no."

On the contrary; who was without sin is at the very heart of the issue. If he honestly didn't know if someone there might be without sin, then he definitely wasn't divine since he didn't know the hearts of all men. If he *did* know that no one there was without sin, then he was consciously addressing a person who was not present when he said, "cast the first stone", which means he WAS telling ALL the men there NOT to stone her.

[Willum]

Point of order: Only Hellenists and Christians thought/think he was clever, the Jews of the day wanted him dead for blasphemy, and that is what happened.

[marco]

On the contrary; who was without sin is at the very heart of the issue. If he honestly didn't know if someone there might be without sin, then he definitely wasn't divine since he didn't know the hearts of all men. If he *did* know that no one there was without sin, then he was consciously addressing a person who was not present when he said, "cast the first stone", which means he WAS telling ALL the men there NOT to stone her.

Yes, we're not discussing Christ's powers, just the situation where he suggested the first stone thrower should be sinless. Whether he knew or didn't know is of no relevance to the question of his breaking some law. With those who might argue with him, the niceties of the letter of the law are all important, not the spirit. In this regard he committed no infringement.

Your argument is worthless since no one is using the situation to decide whether Christ had supernatural detection abilities. If you wish to challenge Christ's credentials, do it properly and relevantly.

The question is about a man, asked what one should do with an adulteress, giving advice which does not break any law since he has not said: "Don't stone her." In fact if somebody supposed themselves to be righteous, the lady would have perished, for the others need not be without sin, from Christ's suggestion. In this situation we're not asking whether Christ could work miracles; we are simply looking at a man who has offered a suggestion and we are testing that suggestion. At least that's what we should be doing.

[marco]

Point of order: Only Hellenists and Christians thought/think he was clever, the Jews of the day wanted him dead for blasphemy, and that is what happened.

When Christ was travelling round there were technically no Christians. That phenomenon rose post mortem or if you like post resurrectionem. Christ was principally interested in his own people, and Jews listened to him giving them lessons about being older than Abraham. This talk would have been lost on non-Jews. Granted some reacted pretty badly and wanted to stone him. They would be called Jews Against Christ (JAC). The ones you are forgetting (JFC) later changed their name to Christians, possibly on the advice of one of the attendant angels who worked as part-time undertakers.

Matthew seems to say every Jew in the world shouted out that they wanted Christ dead and their children cursed for ever. I'm not sure that sane people say such things and I guess we are dealing with one of Matthew's inventions.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 117 by marco]

That is why I used "think/thought."

However, he wasn't too interested in his own people, saying how prostitutes, tax-collectors and other unclean folks would get into Heaven ahead of them...

But yes, time must be considered. In general if you listen to what Jesus said with the ears of Greeks and Christians, he seems wise.
Listen to him through the ears of then-Jews, you nail him to a cross.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marco]

In suggesting that the first stone-thrower should be sinless, he was unquestionably violating the law's command that nothing be added to it (Deuteronomy 4:2), because the adultery command (Deuteronomy 22:22) did not require that ANY stone-thrower be sinless. And it was Jesus himself harping on the niceties of the law when he declared that anyone violating one jot or tittle of them would be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

[Willum]

[Replying to post 119 by Athetotheist]

I have heard a lot of apologetic arguments before.
But I don't even remotely understand that one.

Hmmm... oh, I see, it makes no sense.