Jesus vs Saul-- sinful or sinless?

a reply to: Seede

So, if Jesus was indeed sinless as you seem to believe, wouldn't his lack of action in this supposedly obvious matter of the Torah law-- strictly speaking-- sort of make him a sinner? That he would only remain in limbo juridically (or according to Torah law), by admitting he was indeed a sinner like all other people and therefore could not toss any stones. His lack of action in this story (that was even added hundreds of years later) was related to his humble wit and clever oratory skills, not his supposed sinlessness and divinely forgiving nature. This here is a fine-line paradox. And have you ever wondered why they confront Jesus with this adulteress and why she would call him Lord? Was she his wife or otherwise in his legal care according to Torah law?

Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” [ESV] John 8:10f

Note the word «Neither» there, Gr. οὐδέ, or look it up here. There are rhetorical conditions involved. Jesus says that he neither is in the position to complete a sentence, on the same terms as the others, i.e. pulling the sinners' card, just like the others. If he was indeed sinless, he sure made quite a few attempts pretending not to be. This story included. And in particular.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Even a modern day document like the US constitution suffers some of the same issues the Bible does . Context being king to getting to the understanding of what they were thinking at the time.

This is so very true. My dad taught us practically from birth about Natural Law and First Principles as the foundation for our Constitution, so I have always thought in those terms... I taught my kids the same. To a certain extent, I understand and agree with the Constitution as a "living document," in the sense that our laws should grow and expand and progress in accordance with new technology and industry, etc. But those First Principles have been neglected, forgotten and pretty much abandoned in current discussion and practice.... not to mention, twisted and contorted and compromised for self-serving agendas.

I have found it ironic, in the worst way, that so many folks describe the USA as a "Christian" nation and want to impose Christian values on everyone... but in the real world, it was Christian persecution that prompted the enumerated right to freedom of religion! They are the people the founding fathers tried to protect us from.

Most or at the very least a majority will apply a 21st century context to their understanding . Getting into the minds of the founding fathers of a few years past is a challenge but the ancient world is far far removed from today . but is a important consideration to drill down to a truth of the day .

I have a really awesome old book called Gospel Light, by George Lamsa, who re-translates/interprets the gospels from their original Aramaic, as still spoken by the Kurds. It is a fascinating read, and a real eye opener. Times may change, but fundamental principles -- and the human condition -- do not change. There is so much we could learn about ourselves today, if we opened our minds to understanding the past.

(Sorry for the late reply... sometimes the real world gets in the way!)

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I think my comment above addresses your comment as well! But I have to give a wholehearted thumbs up to this:

The world's greatest religion worships a guy who is nailed to a bloody scaffold for crying out loud.

Life is for the living, and Jesus devoted His life and ministry to teaching us how to live... only for so much focus to be put on His death instead.

I've always lived by the philosophy that we do what we've gotta do so that we can then do what we wanna do. When we make sure to dot all our "I's" and cross all our "T's" then the period at the end takes care of itself. (I hope that makes sense!)

a reply to: ChesterJohn

There are no fundamental differences in the teachings of Jesus and Paul, the only difference is your not rightly dividing the word of truth and applying the word of truth properly.

Um... okay... gotcha. So Saul of Tarsus knew the Lord and His will better than Jesus... or, to paraphrase your words, Jesus did not "rightly" divide the word of truth and apply the word of truth properly.

Yeah, right... I'll believe that when pigs fly AND hell freezes over.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ChesterJohn

There are no fundamental differences in the teachings of Jesus and Paul, the only difference is your not rightly dividing the word of truth and applying the word of truth properly.

Um... okay... gotcha. So Saul of Tarsus knew the Lord and His will better than Jesus... or, to paraphrase your words, Jesus did not "rightly" divide the word of truth and apply the word of truth properly.

Yeah, right... I'll believe that when pigs fly AND hell freezes over.

Touché!

There are kosher pigs you know. We have them up here. They're extremely long and pink. Sort of scruffy, but kind as they come. Just remember not to share bed with them. They'd eat you since they love you, but since you are an unclean short-haired monkey according to the Torah, the cud-chewing pig would spit you out and lament over his own uncleanness. That's when Christmas or rather Jul-- comes in handy. Kosher pork ribs for everybody, and if you're lucky, you get to be slightly dirty on the darkest days of the year. As well.

I thought Jesus was calling dibs

"firsties!"

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Seede

So, if Jesus was indeed sinless as you seem to believe, wouldn't his lack of action in this supposedly obvious matter of the Torah law-- strictly speaking-- sort of make him a sinner? That he would only remain in limbo juridically (or according to Torah law), by admitting he was indeed a sinner like all other people and therefore could not toss any stones. His lack of action in this story (that was even added hundreds of years later) was related to his humble wit and clever oratory skills, not his supposed sinlessness and divinely forgiving nature. This here is a fine-line paradox. And have you ever wondered why they confront Jesus with this adulteress and why she would call him Lord? Was she his wife or otherwise in his legal care according to Torah law?

Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” [ESV] John 8:10f

Note the word «Neither» there, Gr. οὐδέ, or look it up here. There are rhetorical conditions involved. Jesus says that he neither is in the position to complete a sentence, on the same terms as the others, i.e. pulling the sinners' card, just like the others. If he was indeed sinless, he sure made quite a few attempts pretending not to be. This story included. And in particular.

You reason Jesus was a sinner because he didn't throw a stone at her when he told the crowd the one who is without sin to throw the first one while a believer does not throw stones.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

No, that wasn't his sin, it was a good thing no one were sinless, so they could cast the first stone but he reveals that he also is a sinner, since he is unable to cast the first stone. His sins were many, just like all other human beings are sinners.

The idea that Jesus is sinless is pure bollocks. Jesus, like me and you were a sinner. Among other things Jesus lied when he promised to rebuild the Temple in three days. That didn't happen. He was a robber when he ordered his companions to steal a donkey for him. And he was a burglar and many other things. Jesus was no «saint».

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

No, that wasn't his sin, it was a good thing no one were sinless, so they could cast the first stone but he reveals that he also is a sinner, since he is unable to cast the first stone. His sins were many, just like all other human beings are sinners.

Perhaps he thought it was unnecessary... since he was big on forgiveness

Among other things Jesus lied when he promised to rebuild the Temple in three days. That didn't happen.

Probably more of a reference to himself being the temple...

He was a robber when he ordered his companions to steal a donkey for him. And he was a burglar and many other things.

or maybe he told his followers to tell those people that HE needed it?

Dude was apparently pretty popular around the area in that time

but many other things?

Like?