This is pulled from here


Ok, so under the Old Covenant you were held accountable only if all those involved in the sin were caught?


Isaiah you still have not shown how both people who sinned need to be caught and punished or they get off free and clear? So I am not sure why you keep insisting that if I am correct then Christ broke the law by showing mercy and letting that woman go.

Jesus made the point that he was fulfilling the Law as he was on earth. Hence, why he allowed his disciples to break the Sabbath and healed on the Sabbath, etc. Jesus would have released both the man and the woman with the same decree, Go and sin no more, if the man was there. It goes against his merciful and compassionate nature to just let them be stoned, especially by people as unrighteous as the Pharisees.

I have never heard such uninformed, arrogant twisting of that Scripture before. How can you possibly get that interpretation out of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? The Bible is just as much for the common man as the Bible scholar. It's a pretty easy statement to understand.

Isiah, I kinda have to agree that you're pretty off base here.

That passage is suppose to be taken literally, like they're trying to tell you.

The Student Bible- "The Pharisees trying to trap Jesus were not following the Law which required the woman's partner in crime to also appear."



In order to fulfill the Law, Christ had to follow the Law down to the last letter, and dot. Jesus' disciples did not break the Sabbath. They broke a tradition that was built over the years which was not God instituted. If the disciples broke the Sabbath then Christ would be guilty of breaking the Law. Thus, he would not be our Saviour but just another sinner.



No, he would not and if he did he would be guilty of breaking the Law.

This post has been edited by God-Sent: Nov 6 2009, 09:04 AM

It would seem very funny of Jesus to say, "Well, they're both meant to be stoned, but since you bought only the woman out, even she won't be stoned". That is quite extraordinarily non-sensical. If they both should be stoned, they both should be stoned, period. That means the man should be stoned, and the woman. The man's absence doesn't suddenly mean that the woman is not damned by the law!

Also, if that was the case, then Jesus would say something along the lines of, "No, you are being inconsistent, bring the man out here to be stoned too". Instead of, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." The emphasis in that sentence is clearly upon the fact that the Pharisees were not sinless themselves and yet still felt they were in a position to judge and stone her. Jesus's words should not be twisted to justify one's own personal preference to judging others.

No, its not. There is no emphasis on that. The emphasis was the Pharisees hypocrisy. That is the emphasis. The only reason you all disagree with me is because you don't believe Jesus had to follow the Law and uphold it, when he did. The fact of the matter is they would have both been stoned if brought before Christ. Easy as that, just like the law required. Otherwise your saying Jesus directly opposed God's law. It would be complete and utter rebellion to not kill the man and women, thus rendering him insufficient in being the Saviour of mankind, because he himself would not have followed the law of God making him a sinner.

What I have said twists nothing. It is consistent with Christ's mission on earth and the Law which he HAD to follow.

Suggesting that Christ demands the death of anyone is inconsistent with Christian theology and ethics. You can suggest it if you want, but you'll be placing yourself outside of anything resembling Christian faith.

Josh

This post has been edited by Yoda: Today, 02:04 AM

Christ had to follow the Law. You are trying to argue New Covenant. Christ was under the Old Covenant and had to follow the Law down to the last letter, including sacrificial laws.

This post has been edited by Yoda: Today, 02:05 AM

I don't think you understand what "Torah" was for Second Temple Judaism. Might I recommend a brief skim read of Marcus Borg's "Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teaching of Jesus"? (It's Borg's only good book).

Josh

This ones easy.

Christ had to fulfill the law, you agree with this. The law clearly states what she should have been stoned for what she did. Even today we should be stoned every time we break the law despite what Jesus did. But it takes a better man to forgive the woman for what she did then to stone her. Jesus was making a point about forgiveness, the whole turn the other cheek theory.

Matthew 5:38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Hm, but shouldn't by your logic Jesus be teaching if someone slaps you on the right cheek you should slap him back? All those people who whipped Jesus, shouldn't Jesus have used his Godly powers to whip them back? No, he died for them instead, Jesus would take what people would use as an extreme evil and turn it into an extreme good.

Hit me on the right cheek and I'll forgive you, sue me and I'll forgive you, commit adultry and I'll forgive you.

^Have you read Revelation buddy?

Either way Jesus had to keep God's law. Also, the verse you quoted is not a support for Pacifism so I suggest you study its meaning. Or have you not read of Christ and the temple where he carried a whip?

This post has been edited by God-Sent: Today, 12:58 AM

If it is greater to forgive then to avenge in God's eyes then Jesus did exactly what He should have. Heres another popular one...

matt 5:43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Again, Jesus loved His "enemies" and He still does today. Everything He did He did perfectly and we should follow what He did. We should love our enemies like He did, not return hate with hate and turn the other cheek just like Him.

The reason Jesus was so unpopular with the pharisees is because they had the same mentality as you. That the Christ would be some guy that would fulfill the law based on their own worldy visions of a leader. However, Jesus perfected the law. Everything He did was in absolute perfection.

Irrelevant to debate. Please post an argument against what I stated if you proceed in saying it is wrong.

Care to post it?

How does the phrase, "He who is without sin" indicate hypocrisy in not bringing the man out too?
It's very easy to see how it could indicate hypocrisy because the Pharisees were not sinless and were being judgemental.



You still have the problem that that if it is right and proper for them both to be stoned, then at least one of them being stoned is better than neither of them. Therefore, Jesus's not permitting the stoning of the woman was clearly against the Law.



But he came to fulfill the Law; do you think that Jesus was breaking the Law when he told others to turn the other cheek, which is directly contradictary to the "eye for an eye" philosophy the Law had?

Easy there people! Read this, and then decide.

I saw this topic, was intrigued, and went to discuss it with a professor of mine. These are his qualifications:

BA in Biblical Studies, Mississippi College ('78);
MA in Hebrew Language, Institute of Holy Land Studies (Jerusalem, '83);
MA in OT Studies and Hebrew, Reformed Theological Seminary ('86);
MPhil in Hebraic and Cognate Studies, Hebrew Union College ('91);
PhD in Hebraic and Cognate Studies, Hebrew Union College ('92).

This is the text in question:

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

John 8:1-11 (KJV)

Here is what my professor had to say:

The Jewish Law required that for any crime, there had to be two or three witnesses to substantiate it. The testimony of a single witness would not do.

4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. 6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
Deut 17:2-7 (KJV)

When Jesus called for the innocent among the crowd to cast the first stone, He was calling for two or three witnesses to fulfill the role of the Law proscribed in Deut. 17:6-7. No witnesses came forward. Therefore, there was no technicality--the Pharisees simply had no case.

Other interesting information: the fact that there were no witnesses to such an act may imply that all of the woman's accusers were in fact, waiting in line, or simply watching her behavior. Such sin in and of itself would, of course, invalidate them as witnesses.

Jesus MAY have written Deuteronomy 17 in the dirt with His finger, just to show the Pharisees that they still needed witnesses. And/or, He may have started writing the names of those in the crowd who had been watching the woman. That would convict consciences, and cause the crowd to disperse.

Since the Pharisees did not capture the man to prosecute alongside the woman, they wouldn't have had a case anyway, but the lack of witnesses takes precedence in the story. Since the Pharisees had no case, they had to let the woman go, but tried to trap Jesus by testing His knowledge of the Law. Obviously, they failed, and were humiliated as a result.

This post has been edited by Jarrax Volk: Today, 05:21 PM

There also appears to be a reminiscence of Susanna in the narrative. So perhaps Jesus acts here as Daniel did, and the woman, Susanna, is innocent by deduction?