Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:16 pm

@SEG

efinition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Death is unpleasant. Jesus having given the adulterous woman time, and the possibility to reach repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them, rather than put her to death in that moment, is by definition merciful as you know, but won't admit publicly.

Why do you think Jesus should've been unmerciful by killing the adulterous woman, without giving her the opportunity to change her ways first, when you've complained about God being unmerciful to her?
Last edited by Claire on Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:48 am

Claire wrote:Why do you think Jesus should've been unmerciful by killing the adulterous woman, without giving her the opportunity to change her ways first, when you've complained about God being unmerciful?
Apparently, you don't want to explain why, SEG. At the very least, I've learned you would've preferred Jesus was unmerciful to her.
Last edited by Claire on Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:31 pm

This story is mute anyway. Dishonest Christians made it all up: See
https://www.thedailybeast.com/one-of-je ... al-gospels
"“Judge not lest ye be judged.” It’s a favorite with pastors and politicians alike, and no individual story so exemplifies this maxim as Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in adultery in the Gospel of John. A woman "caught in the act" is brought to Jesus by the scribes and Pharisees. They ask him if she should be stoned to death in accordance with the law given by Moses. At first Jesus ignores them and writes on the ground. When the accusers continue to challenge Jesus, he does not take the bait. Instead he asks that the person who is “without sin” cast the first stone. Nobody condemns the woman and Jesus tells the woman that he does not condemn her either and that she should go and sin no more.

The problem is that this story wasn’t originally in the Gospel of John. It didn’t become part of the Bible until at least a hundred years after the Gospel of John was written.


The earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John show no trace of the story. It’s simply not included in the text. The two earliest manuscripts of John (known as P66 and P75), which were written in the second and early third centuries, do not include it. Nor do the mid-fourth century books Codex Sinaiaticus and Codex Vaticanus, the earliest complete collections of the New Testament. So where did the story come from and how did it make it into our Bibles?

In the new book To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story (Princeton, 2018), scholars Jennifer Knust and Tommy Wasserman explore the tangled and complicated history of this beloved story. In it they argue, as others do, that the story was introduced into the Gospel of John by a later interpolator sometime in the third century. Some other ancient authors refer to the story as part of different literary tradition, a lost ‘gospel’ known as the Gospel of the Hebrews. That interpolator presumably believed that the story was important and authentic and added it into the text of the Gospel of John. Looking at the manuscripts themselves it’s possible to watch that happen. One manuscript, Codex Sangallensis 48, leaves a blank space in John 7:53-8:11, the place where the story is usually found.


Though they are careful to point out that we don’t know for sure where the story came from or why it was added to the Gospel of John, Knust, an associate professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Boston University, and Wasserman, a professor of Biblical Studies at Ansgar Teologiske Høgskole in Norway, told The Daily Beast that the interpolation took place “in a context where Greek was used but Latin was also spoken, and probably because the interpolator thought it fit best into that Gospel.” They added that “we can only speculate about why John and not some other Gospel,” but mentioned several theories, including the prominence of stories about women in the Fourth Gospel. They also note the intriguing theory of New Testament scholar Chris Keith that, in addition to portraying Jesus as forgiving, the story also presents Jesus as able to write. Perhaps it was added, then, to combat the scandalous accusation that Jesus wasn’t fully literate.

“Once it was added,” they said “it made sense to many Christians to read it there.”"
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:08 am

SEG wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Why do you think Jesus should've been unmerciful by killing the adulterous woman, without giving her the opportunity to change her ways first, when you've complained about God being unmerciful?
Apparently, you don't want to explain why, SEG. At the very least, I've learned you would've preferred Jesus was unmerciful to her.
This story is mute anyway. Dishonest Christians made it all up:...
And, if you believed the event was true you would've preferred Jesus was unmerciful to the adulterous woman.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:44 pm

Nope. Do you agree that it was an interpolation?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:59 pm

SEG wrote:Do you agree that it was an interpolation?
What do you think?
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
Claire wrote:Why do you think Jesus should've been unmerciful by killing the adulterous woman, without giving her the opportunity to change her ways first, when you've complained about God being unmerciful?
Apparently, you don't want to explain why, SEG. At the very least, I've learned you would've preferred Jesus was unmerciful to her.
This story is mute anyway. Dishonest Christians made it all up:...
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:And, if you believed the event was true you would've preferred Jesus was unmerciful to the adulterous woman.
Nope.
Definition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Death is unpleasant. In the moment the adulterous woman was brought before Jesus He could've put her to death, it would've been just. However, Him having given the adulterous woman time, and the possibility to reach repentance and holiness first, if she wished to reach them, is by definition merciful as you know, but won't admit publicly.

You said Jesus should've just put the adulterous woman to death when she was brought before Him, which means not giving her the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that would've been unmerciful. Therefore, you would've preferred He was unmerciful to her, if you believed this event was true.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Sun Aug 25, 2019 9:54 pm

Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:10 pm

SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
And, you say Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, which means she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that wouldn't have been mercy. So, for some reason, you would've preferred God was unmerciful to her.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:38 am

Claire wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:10 pm
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
And, you say Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, which means she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that wouldn't have been mercy. So, for some reason, you would've preferred God was unmerciful to her.
You know the reason why God was unmerciful to her. Yes, Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, but he was a hyprocrite.

I'm getting dizzy!
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:29 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Who committed this cruel law in the first place? Answer: God/Jesus/Holy Spook.
Definition of "merciful": "bringing someone relief from something unpleasant". Death is unpleasant. In the moment the adulterous woman was brought before Jesus He could've put her to death, it would've been just. However, Him having given the adulterous woman time, and the possibility to reach repentance and holiness first, if she wished to reach them, is by definition merciful as you know, but won't admit publicly.

And, you say Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death, which means she wouldn't have been given the opportunity to change her ways first, if she chose, and that wouldn't have been mercy. So, for some reason, you would've preferred God was unmerciful to her.
Yes, Jesus should've put the adulterous woman to death...
Which means you would've preferred God was unmerciful.
SEG wrote:...he was a hyprocrite.
Jesus didn't save the adulterous woman from death, only death in that moment, and gave her time, and the opportunity to arrive at repentance first, if she chooses. That's called mercy not hypocrisy.

Post Reply