10-16-2007, 08:34 AM
Quote:Therefore, you believe that all married Christians must be buried up to their necks in dirt and killed by having rocks smashed into their faces.
Haha! No. Interesting argument though. =)
I have a friend from Egypt who would act like his hand was a gun and would pretend to shoot people from his window. One day, he "shot" a construction worker, who coincidentally fell off the building that he was working on.
He went to his mother and confessed that he killed someone.
Just in case it didn't sink in yet, one isn't punishable for actions they didn't commit. In our books, Christians that having had pre-marital sex aren't adulterers.
---------------------------
Quote:You are correct. The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John do not contain this passage. For the first few centuries after the death of Christ, this story was circulated as a separate tradition (in both oral and written form). In later centuries, copyists tried inserting this passage in various places in the gospels including here, at the end of the Gospel of John, or after Luke 21:38.
Fair enough. I'll assume that the verses are reliable for the sake of the discussion. In any case, I disagree with your interpretation of the verses.
First of all, we must know the intentions of the Pharisees. I'm sure that you are aware that they came to Jesus not seeking justice, but to make him fall into their trap. The verses say: <i> They put the question as a test, hoping to <b>frame a charge against him.</b></i>
The reason that this is a test is because Jesus cannot judge against her or for her. If he lets her free, then he will be going against the law of Moses. If he judges against her, then the Pharisees will inform the Romans of the action of Jesus.
Let me remind you that the Romans didn't allow the Jews to practice their laws when it came to putting people to death.
In any case, Jesus knew that he didn't have the authority to order this. Also, in another instance, he was asked:
Luke 12:13-14 "Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." But he said to him,<b> "Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?"</b>
Adding onto this, there is a good chance that the man that was conducting sexual relations with her was known to the Pharisees. For they said, "Master, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery."
How could they not know who the man is if they came the woman in the act?
Jesus, finally responds to their trick question by stating that whoever is faultless should cast the first stone. Let us not forget, that according to the Old Testament, a witness is supposed to cast the first stone.
There are a number of interpretations that can be made at the moment. What is meant by Jesus when he says, "That one of you who is faultless shall throw the first stone"?
Faultless or sinless, according to whatever version you are using can either be interpreted to meaning sinless in general or specifically to this situation.
Now, if we are to take it that it is specific, then it would make perfect sense:
Deu 17:7 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.
Interestingly, the witness is supposed to cast the first stone, yet, he isn't sinless. In fact, he was the adulterer. The trick question that was presented to Jesus was responded by a tougher dilemma that resulted in the backing out of the rest of the group. Also, take note that Christ didn't claim to be sinless and throw the first stone.
To further prove that Christ was only applying the law of Moses, we need to look into what happens after they all leave.
"Where are they? Has no one condemned you?' She answered, 'No one, sir.' Jesus said, 'Nor do I condemn you. You may go; do not sin again."
Why doesn't he condemn her? It is because there aren't any witnesses. If he were to condemn her, then he would be going against the law.
This is if the meaning of sinless is to be taken as something specific to this situation. If we were to take it out of context and believe that this is something to be looked at generally, then we would have a few problems. The first and most important one is that Jesus would be going against the will of God according to the following verses:
Deu 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. <b>So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.</b>
Deu 22:22 If a man is discovered committing adultery, both he and the woman must die. <b>In this way, you will purge Israel of such evil.</b>
I truly don't understand why you would want to believe in this, especially since it would mean that God doesn't care enough for us that he wouldn't mind if evil dwelt within our midst.
Also, if we were to take that interpretation would we have to believe that Jesus contradicted himself by saying:
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets: I have come to fulfill them."
Sadly, there are some Christians that wouldn't mind <b>believing</b> that they have a careless God or a contradictive Jesus if that means that they can live their lives without punishment or correction.
The ball is in your park.