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?

[Athetotheist]

Prosecution contends that you're trying to get the defendent off on a technicality.

Then Prosecution should know that people DO get off on technicalities, especially when we are arguing technicalities .

I'm not saying that he complied by trickery; I'm pointing out that he didn't comply at all. The law didn't say that any of them had to be sinless to carry it out, so it certainly didn't say that a sinless one had to be first.

You are arguing from what the law did NOT specify. Presumably children and perhaps women would be disqualified as executioners and maybe insane people or those with injuries. Jesus is NOT disqualifying anyone from stoning; he is suggesting that the first stone thrower should preferably be sinless. He does not disqualify the rest in the event of there being no sinless first throwers. Therefore he is not in the least disobeying the law. As Prosecutor you are maintaining Jesus forbade people to stone. This is not so. That the result was that people walked away, is neither here nor there. They had a choice. Jesus incidentally did NOT say: only those without sin should stone the woman. That is often the misinterpretation but I'm sure, Mr. Prosecutor, that you did not make this mistake.

He *pretends* to tell them to comply with the law while deliberately imposing a condition which would make it impossible for them to do so.

Impossible only if they misunderstood him. He did NOT say that only sinless should stone. Wording, in matters of law, Mr. Prosecutor, is all important.

It's like he was saying, "Okay, go ahead and stone her......IF you can fly to the moon, gather a bunch of moon rocks, bring them back and stone her with those."

It is nothing like saying this. It is possible that someone might consider himself sinless and throw the first stone. It is a matter of personal assessment. Flying to the moon, in your supposed parallel, is not possible whatever the thrower might wish. The phraseology: Let the first sinner be someone who... is not a command but an invitation, a suggestion that would not apply to the group. If we want to get dramatic a scenario would be first man steps up, feels unworthy, drops his stone and walks away. In law this was him casting the first stone: it is not for the others to judge the man's worthiness - they simply step forward and bombard the girl with stones.

So his intent is clear

You will know that his "intent" is not on trial. He is judged by his words.

Here in John he's backpedaling to try to get out of a sticky implication of that endorsement.

He did get out of a sticky situation. He invited people to stone and suggested (let him) who might qualify to go first. The rest is assumption on your part, based on ignoring "first" and the fact that Jesus invited people to stone her.


Jesus walks free. Hallelujah!

Hold on there, hotshot----the trial isn't over yet.

If wording in matters of law is all-important, then consider this wording:

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them *shall* die" (Deut. 22:22)

.....and this wording:

"Cursed be he who does not *confirm* the words of the law to *do* them" (Deut. 27:26)

"Invitations" notwithstanding.

[marco]

If wording in matters of law is all-important, then consider this wording:

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them *shall* die" (Deut. 22:22)

.....and this wording:

"Cursed be he who does not *confirm* the words of the law to *do* them" (Deut. 27:26)

Very good. That's a nice leap from Deut 22 to Deut 27. How important is the word "this" when it replaces "the" in the law. For "this law" may well refer to the list of instances of transgressions, and it is THIS law, not law in general, that is being mentioned. But that apart, at the end of each statement, when some incestuous sin is mentioned, the people say "amen". The curse here is against those foolish enough not to say "amen," the people who do not "confirm" or speak their assent.

So we are back at the start - did Jesus refuse to agree that the woman should be stoned? No he didn't, your Honour, as I explained.

OK Jesus, you can go. Take Peter with you. And keep out of trouble!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marco]

But before you go, answer one more question:

If your criterion for casting the first stone was sinlessness, and you yourself were sinless, wouldn't you yourself have had to cast the first stone in order to be great in the kingdom of heaven [by your own definition] by doing and teaching every jot and tittle of THE law, as YOU said in Matthew 5:19?

[Tcg]

[Replying to marco]

But before you go, answer one more question:

If your criterion for casting the first stone was sinlessness, and you yourself were sinless, wouldn't you yourself have had to cast the first stone in order to be great in the kingdom of heaven [by your own definition] by doing and teaching every jot and tittle of THE law, as YOU said in Matthew 5:19?

What Jesus reportedly said was, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.� The criterion wasn't just sinlessness. It was sinlessness and being one of the men who brought the woman before Jesus. Jesus did not qualify.

For some reason, Jesus' statement from this story is repeatedly misquoted which leads to the misunderstanding that if Jesus was sinless, he should have thrown the first stone.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg]

How well did he teach others to follow the law by not following it himself?

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg]

How well did he teach others to follow the law by not following it himself?

Whoever added this story to John wasn't concerned with consistency. Whatever their goal was, teaching obedience to the law wasn't a priority.


Tcg

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

But before you go, answer one more question:

If your criterion for casting the first stone was sinlessness, and you yourself were sinless, wouldn't you yourself have had to cast the first stone in order to be great in the kingdom of heaven [by your own definition] by doing and teaching every jot and tittle of THE law, as YOU said in Matthew 5:19?

Words are tricky rascals. "Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone" is different from "The man without sin MUST cast the first stone." If there are three saints present, how is this accomplished?

The procedure that follows from Christ's words is that a group of sinners stone the woman, after the first person has dropped or thrown his stone.

I am not sure that my participation in the fracas is either needed or possible, even speculatively.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marco]

If that was his intended procedure for seeing the law carried out, then its failure demonstrates incompetence. Does that suggest a divine nature?

I want to state again my utter revulsion at the law being invoked here. Still, one who claims to be a lawgiver obligates himself to fully own the law he's claiming to give.

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

If that was his intended procedure for seeing the law carried out, then its failure demonstrates incompetence. Does that suggest a divine nature?

I want to state again my utter revulsion at the law being invoked here. Still, one who claims to be a lawgiver obligates himself to fully own the law he's claiming to give.

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

If that was his intended procedure for seeing the law carried out, then its failure demonstrates incompetence. Does that suggest a divine nature?

I want to state again my utter revulsion at the law being invoked here. Still, one who claims to be a lawgiver obligates himself to fully own the law he's claiming to give.

When we examine claims of divinity for Christ we stumble on many things. Were he "sent" to civilise the pagans then he could have got rid of the practice of stoning girls. He might also have mentioned burning people isn't nice either but it seems he couldn't see too far ahead.

I don't think this "Son of Man" as he called himself saw himself as co-equal with Yahweh. In fact the claim would probably have frightened him. It's possible the poor soul couldn't write. His head seems to have been filled with Scripture quotations which I don't really think you learn by osmosis. He theatrically acted out scenes that had some bearing in prophesy.

No I think it is both sad and amusing to consider Jesus was a god. Augustus had a better claim. The tale of the dumb adulteress is just wallpaper in the rambling eulogies of the Evangelists. If Jesus does return with an out-of-date sword, perched precariously on a cloud, we might get an explanation, if he's got time and isn't shot by the Russians or Iranians.