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!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:25 pm

Jesus disobeyed his own law as in :
Leviticus 20:10 New King James Version (NKJV)
10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.should have thrown the first stone
In a forged story written in the 5th Century Jesus breaks his law, contrary to:
Romans 13 New Living Translation (NLT)
Respect for Authority
13 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
This is how the story lays it all out:
In John 8:1-11 New International Version (NIV)
8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”...
Seeing Jesus was supposed to be sinless, and the men could not possibly qualify, why didn't he throw the first stone at her? He should have had respect for his own law and led by example. Instead he explained nothing and wrote stupidly in the sand.
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: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Wed Jul 31, 2019 9:50 pm

In the Temple, Jesus was speaking to a crowd, and suddenly the Pharisees interrupted by throwing a woman at Jesus's feet, speaking to Him of her adultery, Moses's law, and concluded asking what He has to say on the matter. Still sitting, Jesus bent over, and began to write on the stones of the porch, covered by the dust raised by the wind. The Pharisees called him a fool (just as you are calling him stupid now), and repeated the woman's sins, demanding He speak, but Jesus continued to write. As the fresh accusers were speaking, He wrote over and over successively:

"Ursurer"
"False"
"Irreverent Son"
"Fornicator"
"Murderer"
"Desecrator of the Law"
"Thief"
"Libidinous"
"Usurper"
"Unworthy husband and father"
"Blasphemer"
"Rebellious to God"
"Adulterer"

Once more, they demanded His opinion because she was to be judged, and added personal insult to her. Jesus stood up, staring into the crowds with searching intensity, one by one. Those who were stared at tried to withdraw into the crowd to hide. He finally spoke: "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". His eyes searched, penetrated, and accused, as he awaited.

The people present started to go away with lowered heads, and not only the scribes and the Pharisees, but those who were previously around Jesus, and others who had approached Him to hear His opinion, and the sentence, and both the former and the latter had joined together to abuse the guilty woman, and demand her lapidation. Jesus was left alone with the apostles Peter and John, and while the flight of the accusers was taking place, He resumed writing:

"Pharisees"
"Vipers"
Sepulchres of rottenness"
"Liars"
"Traitors"
"Enemies of God"
"Revilers of His Word"

When the court was completely empty, and there was solemn silence, He raised His head and looked. His countenance sad, but no longer angry. After He sent the two apostles outside, He began to speak to the woman asking: "Did no one condemn you?". She replied sobbing, "No one, Master", and He said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and do not sin anymore. Go home, and behave in such a way that you may be forgiven by God, and by the man you offended. And, do not trespass on the benignity of the Lord. Go." Then, He helped her up taking her by the hand.

------------------------------
The Pharisees weren't concerned about justice towards the woman -- you'll notice the man caught in adultery with her wasn't brought forward. They were trying to trap Jesus so they could accuse and judge Him. There was a lack of charity and sincerity in the accusers, and that's what hurt Jesus, not that they had lied in accusing, because the woman was really guilty. They were hypocrites for being scandalized at something they had committed numerous times, and that only greater cunning, and better luck had allowed to remain concealed.

Jesus only said those without sin should throw the stones. No one struck the woman, for no one was without sin. So, Jesus confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found. He could've stoned her to death, it would've been justice, but it would not have been mercy. And, she did not receive mercy because she was repentant, she wasn't, only dejected and frightened. Have you never felt you'd been forgiven before repenting? Now, Jesus was not foolish in forgiving. He didn't say to her what He says to souls who He had forgiven because they were fully repentant. What He gave that soul was time, and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reached them.

Jesus said:
It is essential to possess two things to be true masters, and worthy of being masters [of souls].

The first thing: an austere life for oneself, so that one may judge without the hypocrisy of condemning in other people what one forgives oneself.

The second thing: patient mercy to give souls the time to recover, and fortify themselves.
Source: The Poem of the Man-God
Last edited by Claire on Thu Aug 01, 2019 5:43 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Chapabel » Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:41 am

The Law required the death of both the adulterer and the adulteress. Only the woman was brought before Christ. This is evidence that the Pharisees were not concerned about keeping the Law. They were just trying to trap Jesus. Jesus wasn’t going to fall for their silly games so He turned the tables on them and invited them to stone her if any of them were without sin. So Jesus was neither a hypocrite nor violator of the law.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Thu Aug 01, 2019 7:48 am

Chapabel wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:41 am
The Law required the death of both the adulterer and the adulteress. Only the woman was brought before Christ. This is evidence that the Pharisees were not concerned about keeping the Law.
How do you know that the male didn't abscond, got killed during arrest or die on the job? This is you speculating again.
Chapabel wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:41 am
They were just trying to trap Jesus.
How do you know that? They may have wanted some good Jewish advice from a good Jew. It turns out he wasn't because he ignored the law that he himself set as God. What happened to Romans 13, "Respect for Authority"?
Jesus wasn’t going to fall for their silly games so He turned the tables on them and invited them to stone her if any of them were without sin.
Their silly games? Who was doodling in the sand like a 3 year old instead of referencing the mosaic law from the scriptures? When he said “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” He should have led by example and shown that he was sinless. Maybe he was foxing about the sinless caper and was one of her lovers himself. That would tie in with him wanting to let her off the hook.
Chapabel wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:41 am
So Jesus was neither a hypocrite nor violator of the law.
He was both and a traitor as well. No wonder they strung him up!
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: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:20 am

SEG wrote:Instead he explained nothing and wrote stupidly in the sand.
SEG wrote:Who was doodling in the sand like a 3 year old...
Like you, the Pharisees also said Jesus was drawing on the dust like a fool. However, He wasn't, rather wrote the following
as they, and the other accusers spoke:

"Ursurer"
"False"
"Irreverent Son"
"Fornicator"
"Murderer"
"Desecrator of the Law"
"Thief"
"Libidinous"
"Usurper"
"Unworthy husband and father"
"Blasphemer"
"Rebellious to God"
"Adulterer"
"Pharisees"
"Vipers"
Sepulchres of rottenness"
"Liars"
"Traitors"
"Enemies of God"
"Revilers of His Word"
SEG wrote:Seeing Jesus was supposed to be sinless, and the men could not possibly qualify, why didn't he throw the first stone at her? He should have had respect for his own law and led by example.
Like you, Judas Iscariot also said Jesus went against the Law, after he heard Jesus say He saved her. In reply, Jesus said:

"I did not say I wanted to save her. I only said those without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, for no one was without sin.
So, I confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but I also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found".

Do you think Jesus should've stoned her to death? It would've been justice, because He could've, but it would not have been mercy.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:42 pm

Claire wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:20 am
SEG wrote:Instead he explained nothing and wrote stupidly in the sand.
SEG wrote:Who was doodling in the sand like a 3 year old...
Like you, the Pharisees also said Jesus was drawing on the dust like a fool. However, He wasn't, rather wrote the following
as they, and the other accusers spoke:

"Ursurer"
"False"
"Irreverent Son"
"Fornicator"
"Murderer"
"Desecrator of the Law"
"Thief"
"Libidinous"
"Usurper"
"Unworthy husband and father"
"Blasphemer"
"Rebellious to God"
"Adulterer"
"Pharisees"
"Vipers"
Sepulchres of rottenness"
"Liars"
"Traitors"
"Enemies of God"
"Revilers of His Word"
SEG wrote:Seeing Jesus was supposed to be sinless, and the men could not possibly qualify, why didn't he throw the first stone at her? He should have had respect for his own law and led by example.
Like you, Judas Iscariot also said Jesus went against the Law, after he heard Jesus say He saved her. In reply, Jesus said:

"I did not say I wanted to save her. I only said those without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, for no one was without sin.
So, I confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but I also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found".

Do you think Jesus should've stoned her to death? It would've been justice, because He could've, but it would not have been mercy.
It would have been merciful not to have cruel punishments like that in the first place. Your Jesus aka God was the author of cruelty, not love and forgiveness if you believe this tripe. Thank God that this is fiction.

Being a lapidator would have been cool though. Staying at home all day and smoking weed. Reminds me of the old days.
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: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:13 pm

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Seeing Jesus was supposed to be sinless, and the men could not possibly qualify, why didn't he throw the first stone at her? He should have had respect for his own law and led by example.
Like you, Judas Iscariot also said Jesus went against the Law, after he heard Jesus say He saved her. In reply, Jesus said:

"I did not say I wanted to save her. I only said those without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, for no one was without sin.
So, I confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but I also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found".

Do you think Jesus should've stoned her to death? It would've been justice, because He could've, but it would not have been mercy.
It would have been merciful not to have cruel punishments like that in the first place.
Yet, you said Jesus should've stoned her to death. It would've been justice, because He could've, but it would not have been mercy.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:49 pm

Claire wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:13 pm
Yet, you said Jesus should've stoned her to death. It would've been justice, because He could've, but it would not have been mercy.
I didn't say that, but if he was consistent he should have had respect for his own law and led by example. If he had mercy, he would never have made such a cruel law.

Do you think stoning someone to death for any reason is cruel?
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.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by SEG » Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:56 pm

Chapabel wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:41 am
The Law required the death of both the adulterer and the adulteress. Only the woman was brought before Christ. This is evidence that the Pharisees were not concerned about keeping the Law. They were just trying to trap Jesus. Jesus wasn’t going to fall for their silly games so He turned the tables on them and invited them to stone her if any of them were without sin. So Jesus was neither a hypocrite nor violator of the law.
Why did he create such a cruel law to begin with? He was happy with using that unmerciful and cruel punishment against thousands of men and women for centuries. Why did he wish to violate his own law like a hypocrite?
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: 1230
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Jesus the hypocrite should have thrown the first stone

Post by Claire » Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:59 pm

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Yet, you said Jesus should've stoned her to death.
I didn't say that, but if he was consistent he should have had respect for his own law....
That's another way of saying Jesus should've stoned her to death, but it would not have been mercy.
SEG wrote:Why did he wish to violate his own law like a hypocrite?
Jesus only said those without sin should throw the stones. And, no one struck her, for no one was without sin. So, Jesus confirmed the Law that inflicts lapidation on adulterers, but He also saved the woman because not one lapidator could be found. Jesus could've stoned her to death, it would've been justice, but it would not have been mercy.
Last edited by Claire on Fri Aug 02, 2019 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply