Priestly apologetics in a sermon this a.m.

[drfuzzy]

So, today's sermon was about the woman caught in adultery.  Jewish law said she should be stoned to death. 

---

Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

And Jesus comes back with the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit.  Which ya gotta admit is a pretty brilliant response, whether the guy actually said it or not.  

---

 John 8:7 - He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 

---

And then the priest went into this convoluted explanation - that he thought Jesus was perfecting the law, and even maybe that God gave the law so that humans would grow and CHANGE it, after all, God changes his mind repeatedly throughout the OT . . . 
     I just really felt sorry for the guy.  I mean, he has spent his entire life, trying to make excuses for his god and his book.  What must that do to a human being?

     I also noticed that he completely left out the part where the law says both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death.

---

 Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

Where was the guy?  And the fact that the passage makes it clear that it's only adultery with someone else's property: wife or mother.  But this guy is yammering on about Jesus "perfecting" the law, surely a priest in his 60's knows Matthew 5:17-19 . . . ?

---

 Matthew 5:17-19 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

---

   You guys can discuss the passage if you wish, or the priests' take on it . . . probably some theists will jump on it.  I just really feel sorry for this priest though.  He's a nice guy, and he was just tying himself in knots, saying "maybe Jesus" this and "maybe God" that.

[vorlon13]

worse for the mormons . . . .


[snicker]

[Minimalist]

I'm guessing the pious fuck didn't know that story was a forgery added centuries later, huh?

http://garthright.blogspot.com/2014/02/f...hrman.html

That story in the Gospel of John about the adulterous woman (just the woman, naturally) brought to Jesus for judgment? You remember that famous line: "Let the one without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her"? Too bad that story isn't actually true, isn't it?

I mean, it's certainly questionable whether anything in the Gospel of John is true, but that particular story was not originally a part of the New Testament. It was added centuries later.

[KevinM1]

And then the priest went into this convoluted explanation - that he thought Jesus was perfecting the law, and even maybe that God gave the law so that humans would grow and CHANGE it, after all, God changes his mind repeatedly throughout the OT . . . 

Except, Jesus is god, so it's not like humans actually changed that part anyway....

Not that any of this actually happened, of course.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So, today's sermon was about the woman caught in adultery.  Jewish law said she should be stoned to death. 

---

Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

And Jesus comes back with the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit.  Which ya gotta admit is a pretty brilliant response, whether the guy actually said it or not.  

---

 John 8:7 - He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 

---

And then the priest went into this convoluted explanation - that he thought Jesus was perfecting the law, and even maybe that God gave the law so that humans would grow and CHANGE it, after all, God changes his mind repeatedly throughout the OT . . . 
     I just really felt sorry for the guy.  I mean, he has spent his entire life, trying to make excuses for his god and his book.  What must that do to a human being?

     I also noticed that he completely left out the part where the law says both the adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death.

---

 Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

Where was the guy?  And the fact that the passage makes it clear that it's only adultery with someone else's property: wife or mother.  But this guy is yammering on about Jesus "perfecting" the law, surely a priest in his 60's knows Matthew 5:17-19 . . . ?

---

 Matthew 5:17-19 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

---

   You guys can discuss the passage if you wish, or the priests' take on it . . . probably some theists will jump on it.  I just really feel sorry for this priest though.  He's a nice guy, and he was just tying himself in knots, saying "maybe Jesus" this and "maybe God" that.

Jesus was supposed to have been without sin so he should have thrown the first stone.

The story is actually about the worshiping another deity other than the Jewish one.  Maybe she was seen coming out of another temple or doing some other religion's rituals.  She could have even been one of Jesus' hooker babes who had been praying to him.  In any case the story isn't about some busybodies catching a woman screwing a guy on the street.  In the Bible the word "adultery" is used to denote the activity of worshiping other gods.

[Huggy Bear]

I'm guessing the pious fuck didn't know that story was a forgery added centuries later, huh?

http://garthright.blogspot.com/2014/02/f...hrman.html

That story in the Gospel of John about the adulterous woman (just the woman, naturally) brought to Jesus for judgment? You remember that famous line: "Let the one without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her"? Too bad that story isn't actually true, isn't it?

I mean, it's certainly questionable whether anything in the Gospel of John is true, but that particular story was not originally a part of the New Testament. It was added centuries later.

Do you always just choose from information which fits your narrative?

You claim (on multiple occasions) that Jesus never existed:

Jesus definitely existed. I know that a lot of people try to dismiss his existence entirely because the accounts we base his existence on are second-hand and/or written many years after he died, but people have to understand that by classical historical standards that's pretty good evidence.

But like others said, no, the miracle man definitely did not exist.

Read Richard Carrier's "On The Historicity of Jesus" and find out how wrong you are.

I'm simply asking if you think there was a man 2000ish years ago named Jesus who brought forth these new "ideas" that we now call Christianity.

No way.

Yet I see you referencing Bart Ehrman to prove your point. You do realize that according to Ehrman, Jesus did in fact exist?

http://www.bartdehrman.com/did-jesus-exist/

In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.

Since you CLEARLY disagree with Ehrman on whether or not Jesus existed, Why do you all of the sudden agree with him in this case?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Old joke:  Jesus tells the crowd, 'Let he among you that is without sin, cast the first stone.'  Immediately, a rock whizzes out of the crowd and cracks the adulteress on the bean.

Jesus gives a heavy sigh and says, 'Mum, you're not making my job any easier...'

Boru

[Angrboda]

Although nothing in this story contradicts anything else in the Gospels, many analysts of the Greek text and manuscripts of the Gospel of John have argued that it was "certainly not part of the original text of St John's Gospel.". . . In terms of simple quantities, 1,476 Greek manuscripts include the pericope adulterae, and 267 do not include it. Among those 267, however, are some manuscripts which are exceptionally early and which most textual analysts consider the most important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_...n_adultery

You don't need to get into a pissing contest over a legitimate concern.

[FebruaryOfReason]

While I would never condone stoning anyone for adultery, isn't there a bit of a flaw in Jesus' argument here?

Isn't he effectively saying that - because we've all done something wrong at some stage in our lives - nobody is in a position to punish anyone for anything?
How would that work in practice?

"Sorry your Honour, but as you broke the speed limit driving to court, you can't sit in judgement on this child-murderer."

"Yes, your honour, it was me wot done the post-office job with Fingers Maginty, but you've been shagging an exotic dancer behind your wife's back, so you can't send me to prison."

WTF???

[Wyrd of Gawd]

While I would never condone stoning anyone for adultery, isn't there a bit of a flaw in Jesus' argument here?

Isn't he effectively saying that - because we've all done something wrong at some stage in our lives - nobody is in a position to punish anyone for anything?
How would that work in practice?

"Sorry your Honour, but as you broke the speed limit driving to court, you can't sit in judgement on this child-murderer."

"Yes, your honour, it was me wot done the post-office job with Fingers Maginty, but you've been shagging an exotic dancer behind your wife's back, so you can't send me to prison."

WTF???

The story ties into the stories about not judging other people because if you do then the standard that you used to judge them will be applied to you.  Matthew 7:1-5.