Jesus and the Ten Commandments

[Willum]

So team, I think we all agree that the Ten Commandment are God's most cardinal unbreakable laws.

As God's son and a piece of him - whatever anyone may say, violating those commandments should be impossible - if he were real, I am sure we all agree.

So, let's see how many of them Jesus advocates breaking?

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

and what it means.

[Elijah John]

So team, I think we all agree that the Ten Commandment are God's most cardinal unbreakable laws.

As God's son and a piece of him - whatever anyone may say, violating those commandments should be impossible - if he were real, I am sure we all agree.

So, let's see how many of them Jesus advocates breaking?

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

and what it means.

I see Jesus as supporting most if not all of these Commandments.

Except perhaps, for the 5th. When he advocated "let the dead bury their own dead" to a man who wanted to bury his Father.

And he seemed somewhat disrespectful to his Mother at times.

But other than that, Jesus seems to have kept all the others and could certainly be considered a righteous person if not "perfect".

[marco]

So, let's see how many of them Jesus advocates breaking?

It's a little bit hard on Jesus to suggest he advocated breaking his Father's orders. He was rather loose or generous in interpreting them. I suppose he was spoken to rather harshly when he got home.

People worship Jesus and make images of him on the cross. He didn't discourage this but he didn't ask for it either.
His pal Tom said "My Lord and My God!" so either Tom was taking the name of God in vain (whatever that means) or he was worshipping a false God. Jesus was quiet.

The lady carelessly "taken in adultery" wasn't exactly excused. Jesus asked the people to form an orderly line and the one with no previous convictions was to throw the first stone. He didn't say it is wrong to throw stones at women, and the practice is alive and well today in some civilised countries. I don't recall Jesus stealing anything unless he pilfered the loaves and fishes from the small boy. But he gave generous interest on his loan.


Nope - I think the case against Christ is not a strong one.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 3 by marco]

I am unsure how you can say Jesus creating a false set of circumstance in order to prevent the punishment of an adulteress does not contradict "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

It was neither his place to punish, not amend sentence.
He was just some guy who wandered in, and NOT punishing adultery is a gentile practice, not a Jewish one.
"Let he who is without sin caste the first stone..." How does that work against murder? It doesn't. And one sin is as bad as another, right?

Alternatively, I must ask, what should have been her punishment for adultery? It is a commandment right?

[marco]

I am unsure how you can say Jesus creating a false set of circumstance in order to prevent the punishment of an adulteress does not contradict "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

He did it with some subtlety, Willum. At no point does he say you must not stone her. Instead, he simply suggests who should go first, which is infringing no rule. It is possible that a few might have considered themselves without sin and eligible to throw the first stone, but as Jesus suspected, no one came forward.

Notice he did NOT say: only those without sin should throw. That would be changing the rules. Instead, he invites them to come forward to carry out the penalty but by their own self-judgement, no one would volunteer to throw first. I think he was rather clever.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 5 by marco]

So, what you seem to be saying is it is OK to violate the 10 Commandments, if you have a good lawyer?
Or if you are clever?
Or if you don't get caught?
Or if you don't get punished?
Sorry, my friend, this may have fooled everyone for the last few millenia, but I for one, am just confused.

If only those without sin can punish - who enforces the (holy) laws?

Frankly, I think you are allowing your 'gentile culture' to influence your judgment: The West has always had a very forgiving view on adultery. At least it didn't involve stoning.

Now imagine if you are Jewish, and some fellow, Jesus, but a Jesus who is not the myth, but some guy off the street, (because who was Jesus in 0CE?), had said the same thing to the mob?

I find it unlikely they didn't crucify someone for saying "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

[marco]

If only those without sin can punish - who enforces the (holy) laws?

This is precisely NOT what Christ said. If he said only those free of sin can punish, then he was disobeying the law. The important word is FIRST.

Christ says: Yes, of course you must stone her for adultery. That is the law. Now form a line and begin, and let the first stone be thrown by whichever one of you is free of sin. That seems fair. He does not say only the sinless may throw.

A good lawyer is a great benefit, especially in matters of life and death. Shakespeare used the same idea in the Merchant of Venice. Yes, go ahead and cut your pound of flesh, but if you cut out one bit more then you will be subject to another law that requires the death penalty.

It could all have gone badly had people simply said "Okay, it seems there's no one in prime position, so I may as well go now." But they didn't. And when Solomon, with similar cleverness, suggested the baby be cut in two his judgment was excellent only in that he anticipated the reaction. Similarly, Christ's judgment depended on knowing the hearts of those he was addressing.

There's a lot we can fault in the Bible, but let's give credit where it is due.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 7 by marco]

Sorry, it still does not make sense.
So she violated the Ten Commandments.
The Jews have an expression: "Who God condemns, is it lawful to succor?"

So, the vexing problem is: There is a grave sin if she is NOT punished, and all that mob have partaken in it, as well as those Jews whom only heard the story.

I don't see cleverness at all - I see a gentile weasel out of the Ten C's. Which an all-seeing Jewish God certainly would not be fooled by. (Nor would real Jews - casting doubt on the story itself - but we can leave that one alone.)

Translation: Still confused.

[marco]

[Replying to post 7 by marco]

Sorry, it still does not make sense.
So she violated the Ten Commandments.
The Jews have an expression: "Who God condemns, is it lawful to succor?"

So, the vexing problem is: There is a grave sin if she is NOT punished, and all that mob have partaken in it, as well as those Jews whom only heard the story.

I don't see cleverness at all - I see a gentile weasel out of the Ten C's. Which an all-seeing Jewish God certainly would not be fooled by. (Nor would real Jews - casting doubt on the story itself - but we can leave that one alone.)

Translation: Still confused.

Dear Willum, I am sorry I confused you. Let me bring Shakespeare to my assistance first:

"The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;"

I know Yahweh comes over as tough, and he is, but somewhere, I forget where, he advocates what Shakespeare is advocating... mercy. True, he has said that naughty little girls must have stones thrown at them. (Interestingly, Islam prescribes the actual size - not too big so that she's not killed too fast.) Anyway, Jesus importantly did not say: Do not stone her. The good men of the town, if that's what they were, walked away. Yep, bad, they should have killed the woman, but they reflected and went away.

Importantly, Christ did not at any time say that his dad was wrong to want adulteresses stoned. All I can say is that the "taken" woman was fortunate Christ's mum, immaculately conceived, wasn't among the crowd with a stone in her hand. Phew!

Yes, I get your point, Willum, that Jesus does seem to take a benign view of the harsh commands of his Father and perhaps it would have been best had he simply said the old stuff was rubbish, and love is the new song. But in a way, he did.... sort of.

I am not being paid as his counsel, by the way.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 3 by marco]

"Let he who is without sin caste the first stone..." How does that work against murder? It doesn't. And one sin is as bad as another, right?

False, that is exactly how it works. The witnesses are required to caste the first stones, and, if one of them were to have committed perjury, that person would receive the punishment prescribed for the law that was being testified about. Also, if the trial was in anyway improper, that would also be a sin.