He without sin casting the first stone

[LDNCatholic]

Theoretically, if there was a person without sin present when the adulterous woman was about to be stoned, could he have thrown a stone?

 

[whatevergirl]

Theoretically, if there was a person without sin present when the adulterous woman was about to be stoned, could he have thrown a stone?

There was one present–Christ. He didn’t throw any, though.

 

[LDNCatholic]

There was one present–Christ. He didn’t throw any, though.

One who wasn’t there to rescue her

OK for example in the verse of the OT which states ‘‘thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’’-IF (big if) someone out there was sinless, could they go slaying wiccans left right and centre without it being a sin?

And no, I’m not trying to find a loophole to commit mass murder, it just came to my mind in another thread.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think the implication of the statement was that everyone there DID have sins as bad as that woman, so how can they condemn her? I do not think it implied that if there happened to be someone there like Mary, that she could let fly.

 

[LDNCatholic]

I think the implication of the statement was that everyone there DID have sins as bad as that woman, so how can they condemn her? I do not think it implied that if there happened to be someone there like Mary, that she could let fly.

Would have made for an interesting read if the gnostics had included that though (reminds me of a joke I heard…)

 

[musicgal4jesus]

Would have made for an interesting read if the gnostics had included that though (reminds me of a joke I heard…)

This reminds me of that joke that goes:

Jesus was brought to the adulterous women to decide whether or not she should be stoned. As we all know, he said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
whizzzz- clunk! A stone came zipping along and conked the woman over the head.
Jesus groaned. “Mother!”

 

[MarieVeronica]

There was one present–Christ. He didn’t throw any, though.

Excellent answer, whatevergirl. Short, sweet, and TRUE. God bless.

 

[po18guy]

One who wasn’t there to rescue her OK for example in the verse of the OT which states ‘‘thou shalt not suffer a witch to live’’-IF (big if) someone out there was sinless, could they go slaying wiccans left right and centre without it being a sin? And no, I’m not trying to find a loophole to commit mass murder, it just came to my mind in another thread.

It must have been prescribed by the law before a stone could be cast. It is not lawful to punish a wiccan. The Lord will do that, if He judges so. Under Mosaic law, stoning was the sentence. The lesson was that Christ came not to condemn, but to save. He told her so, and how to accomplish it.

Christ’s peace.

 

[whatevergirl]

This reminds me of that joke that goes:

Jesus was brought to the adulterous women to decide whether or not she should be stoned. As we all know, he said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
whizzzz- clunk! A stone came zipping along and conked the woman over the head.
Jesus groaned. “Mother!”

ha! I like that!

 

[whatevergirl]

To me, it showed Jesus’ indirect way of condeming capital punishment…I know many might disagree, but this is my own personal view of that. I mean–that was the law of their day–to kill women (and men?) who commited adultery. I think that Jesus wanted to show two things–a) should we condemn someone if we ourselves are sinful and b) we shouldn’t be killing people who have sinned against God. Perhaps, Jesus was also implying that some of those laws should be changed, even though He also preached ‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.’ (meaning, the law of the land is the people’s to choose) But, for the adultery scene–it would seem that Jesus was showing people–there is a better way.

Just my two cents.

 

[whatevergirl]

Also here is the rest of the story…

10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”

What we can take from that is Jesus knew He was the only one without sin in the bunch – and yet He wasn’t going to stone her “either.” When He says either, it’s as though He is telling the woman…only God judges, and He is not condemning you in sin–‘go and repent.’ (basically) I have always thought that “either” to be Jesus’ way of saying–I’m sinless, and I’m not condemning you–(so who are we to condemn people in their sin, as well?)

 

[Cristiano]

This reminds me of that joke that goes:

Jesus was brought to the adulterous women to decide whether or not she should be stoned. As we all know, he said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
whizzzz- clunk! A stone came zipping along and conked the woman over the head.
Jesus groaned. “Mother!”

That is the reason why He wrote in the sand! What do you you think He wrote down (it does not say that in the Gospels)? " Mother please stay out of this!"

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that the Pharisees staged this event to trap Jesus. They hoped to force Him to either order her stoned, and thus become subject ot Roman Law for killing her, or let her go and violate Mosaic Law.

The Pharisees claimed to be without fault - sinless. Jesus reveresed the trap by ordering them to stone her, thus becoming subject to Roman Law for her death, or to refrain, thus admitting that they were not as perfect as they claimed.

Meanwhile, He wrote their names in the dust. They must have recalled Jeremiah 17:13

O LORD, the hope of Israel, all who forsake thee shall be put to shame; those who turn away from thee* shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water.

 

[po18guy]

That is the reason why He wrote in the sand! What do you you think He wrote down (it does not say that in the Gospels)? " Mother please stay out of this!"

OFF TOPIC WARNING TO SELF!

This is a great refutation of sola scriptura. That which Christ Himself wrote is not in the bible.

Christ’s peace.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Fantastic! Questions answered and lessons learned