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]

.

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

I regard every real living person as 'greater than' the tooth fairy, Little Red Riding Hood, Santa Claus, and the thousands of invisible, undetectable, proposed 'gods' -- and greater than all characters from mythology.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to tam]

If Jesus was teaching mercy, why didn't he teach that mercy consistently? He certainly didn't "surpass" the written law when he endorsed every jot and tittle of it in Matthew 5:18-19. If the people who heard that sermon had gone back to their town and found an adulteress, what would they have done to her in order to be faithful to what Jesus had told them about the law?

[1213]

...
I can type, reason, I was not born a sinner, nor do I sin. ....

Please explain what do you mean with word “sin�?

[marco]

[Replying to tam]

If Jesus was teaching mercy, why didn't he teach that mercy consistently? He certainly didn't "surpass" the written law when he endorsed every jot and tittle of it in Matthew 5:18-19. If the people who heard that sermon had gone back to their town and found an adulteress, what would they have done to her in order to be faithful to what Jesus had told them about the law?

The 30-year-old Jesus was not a professor of theology. He said what came into his head and sometimes what he said was inspired. But being a simple preacher he was not consistent. He warned people not to use insulting words, like raca, about others and then the next minute he was shouting about Pharisees being "whited sepulchres." The man who said you don't use violence, even when it's used against you; and you forgive seventy times seven times, but then off he goes, gets a whip and lashes out at merchants.

Jesus was mix of sound and fury, love and anger, and though he intended to keep every tittle, he found in practice he could not. His tongue got him in trouble and he was executed as a criminal. That would be the end of the story had Paul not appeared on the horizon.... or on the road to Damascus.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam]

If Jesus was teaching mercy, why didn't he teach that mercy consistently?

He (Jaheshua) did. When did He ever not teach mercy? Mercy is not against the law. Mercy is from love. Mercy is what God desires.

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice." Hosea 6:6

Christ to the Pharisees (on more than one occasion):

"Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' " Matthew 9:13

If you are having trouble seeing that in the law and the OT, then perhaps that is at least in part because of something that Jeremiah the prophet said happened (Jeremiah 8:8).

He certainly didn't "surpass" the written law when he endorsed every jot and tittle of it in Matthew 5:18-19. If the people who heard that sermon had gone back to their town and found an adulteress, what would they have done to her in order to be faithful to what Jesus had told them about the law?

If that is all they heard from Him, then I suppose they might have done what they were already going to do, to begin with.

If they listened to the rest of His words, as well as took note of the example that He set, including here with this woman, then perhaps they would have asked themselves the same question that Christ got that mob to ask of themselves: am I without sin that I may cast the first stone; have I removed the log from my own eye so that I can see the speck in my brother's eye; should I not forgive so that I can be forgiven; should I not refrain from judging so that I am not judged in the same way...?, etc.



Christ is the One who reveals His Father as His Father truly is.


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

[Wootah]

Moderator Intervention

Please discuss the topic and not respond to diversions that are not the topic. If this thread has sparked your interest to discuss mercy or something else, please create a new thread rather than take this thread further off topic.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Wootah]

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?

Hi Willum,

Nothing was abrogated. 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.

I prefer the Jesus pays for my sins option.

[Zzyzx]

.

If they listened to the rest of His words, as well as took note of the example that He set, including here with this woman, then perhaps they would have asked themselves the same question that Christ got that mob to ask of themselves: am I without sin that I may cast the first stone; have I removed the log from my own eye so that I can see the speck in my brother's eye; should I not forgive so that I can be forgiven; should I not refrain from judging so that I am not judged in the same way...?, etc.

Is this to say that those who break the law shall not be judged or punished?

[Willum]

Ok folks. Talk amongst yourselves.

But realize, if you have to use every rational means at your disposal to avoid a topic, it means that you neither have ability to confront it, and you have acknowledged that the subject matter has defeated you, in this case, shown how feeble your beliefs are, that they cannot stand the inquiry of a few lines of questions.

At least despite the deflections this little op has inspired, I get to see all you theists run in very irrational fear and perhaps allow you to confront that nothing.

[Athetotheist]

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?

Hi Willum,

Nothing was abrogated. 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.

I prefer the Jesus pays for my sins option.

Deuteronomy 4:2 rules out any jot or tittle of the law being optional.

"....because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all his commandments which I command you today, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God." (Deut. 13:18)

....which is another way of saying....

....because you have listened to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep the commandment of Deuteronomy 22:22 which I command you today, to do what is right in the eyes of the Lord your God.

Again, if the men holding the adulteress had reminded Jesus of this, how could he have refuted it?