Jesus Camp closed

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Which is?

The same as the more coherent version, of course. And if the more coherent version isn't enough for you, read the rest of the thread again.

Originally posted by Nordlys
The same as the more coherent version, of course. And if the more coherent version isn't enough for you, read the rest of the thread again.

Let me make it simpler for you. Which of the following did no1 mean?

(a) There would be a lot less stonings if only those without sin could do them.
(b) There wouldn't be a lot less stonings if only those without sin could do them.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let me make it simpler for you. Which of the following did no1 mean?

(a) There [b]would be a lot less stonings if only those without sin could do them.
(b) There wouldn't be a lot less stonings if only those without sin could do them.[/b]

(a), of course. How could it mean (b)? What he was saying (or at least what I and seemingly also Palynka think he was saying) was that Jesus basically condemned stoning by saying that only those without sin were allowed to do it.

Originally posted by Nordlys
(a), of course. How could it mean (b)?

If he was being sarcastic, for instance (and no1 often is).

In any case, always best to ask and be sure, right?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If he was being sarcastic, for instance (and no1 often is).

In any case, always best to ask and be sure, right?

Sure, he is often sarcastic, but what he says also usually makes sense. But of course you are right, asking for clarification if you aren't certain is a good idea. "Huh?" may not be the best way to go about it, though. 😉

Originally posted by Nordlys
Sure, he is often sarcastic, but what he says also usually makes sense. But of course you are right, asking for clarification if you aren't certain is a good idea. "Huh?" may not be the best way to go about it, though. 😉

"Have you ever read the Bible, LH?" is not the best response either.

But hey, live and let live. 🙂

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"Have you ever read the Bible, LH?" is not the best response either.

But hey, live and let live.

I have learned to mostly ignore such responses by no1 as meaningless marauding. Take it as a compliment that I expect something better of you. 🙂

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not sure what I'd have to agree/disagree with.

Stoning does not appear to fit with Christ's message but, if that were the case, why did he not simply condemn it when the question was put to him directly?

EDIT: I guess I'd have to say I disagree with a simplistic black-and-white view of either Jesus's "message" (and that term has a different ...[text shortened]... ians and Christians) or his views of pre-Christian Jewish practices we consider barbaric.

Can you quote the passage where the question was put to him directly? I don't know it.

Originally posted by Palynka
Can you quote the passage where the question was put to him directly? I don't know it.

The episode is from John 8 (no1 cited it earlier):

[3] The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst
[4] they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.
[5] Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?"
[6] This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
[7] And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
[8] And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
[9] But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.
[10] Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
[11] She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again."

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The episode is from John 8 (no1 cited it earlier):

[3] The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst
[b][4] they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.
[5] Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?"
[6] This t "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again."[/b]

For me, the message there is quite clear. None of you can judge her, only God.

What's your read of the passage? You haven't explicitly said how you interpret it. It's one of the strongest (okay, subjective) passages in the Bible and I don't think Jesus was accusing the others of sin more than accusing the others of judging her.

Stoning implies judgement with a violent side to boost. I don't see how you can justify that Jesus was neutral about the stoning itself.

Does the Vatican have an official position about this passage/event?

Originally posted by Palynka
For me, the message there is quite clear. None of you can judge her, only God.

What's your read of the passage? You haven't explicitly said how you interpret it. It's one of the strongest (okay, subjective) passages in the Bible and I don't think Jesus was accusing the others of sin more than accusing the others of judging her.

Stoning implies judgemen ...[text shortened]... the stoning itself.

Does the Vatican have an official position about this passage/event?

"None of you ..." is one [moral] message of the episode, but it isn't the only one. For instance, as you said yourself, "adultery is a sin" is also a [moral] message of the story.

But the situational context of the episode (set by the part I highlighted in bold earlier) also addresses another question -- how did Jesus view the Mosaic Law/laws? Elsewhere in the Gospels Jesus faces similar "trick" questions by lawyers and Pharisees. On certain occasions he openly criticises or violates the law (e.g. on divorce, on Sabbath etc. -- I can find the references for all these if you want). But there are also occasions where he defends the Law (e.g. "I have not come to abolish Moses and the prophets", "I have not come to abolish the Law" etc.)

One has to see this episode in the larger context of similar situations in the Gospels (and many commentators think that the pericope originally came from one of the Synoptic Gospel traditions). Why didn't Jesus just say (as he did with divorce) that the law of stoning was given by Moses because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts? Why did he effectively say instead, "Sure, she must be stoned. You may stone her provided the first stone (note: he only speaks of the first stone) is cast by someone without sin"?

How do I read the passage? I think Jesus did not explicitly reject stoning because he thought it was a just punishment for the crime; i.e. he did not intend to downplay the serious nature of what the woman had committed. At the same time, he recognised that the woman was repentant and he preferred forgiveness to punishment.

The Church tends not to say about Scripture passages "This is the only way to interpret it". Rather, it says "This is one correct way to interpret it" and any other interpretations that do not contradict the way the Church reads it are also admissible. With the specific passage in question, I'll need to check the index of the Catechism to see how the Church has read it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"None of you ..." is one [moral] message of the episode, but it isn't the only one. For instance, as you said yourself, "adultery is a sin" is also a [moral] message of the story.

But the situational context of the episode (set by the part I highlighted in bold earlier) also addresses another question -- how did Jesus view the Mosaic Law/laws? Else ...[text shortened]... need to check the index of the Catechism to see how the Church has read it.

Still, the implicit idea that forgiving is better than stoning remains. He himself forgave her.

Note that I don't think forgiveness is the same as neutrality or acceptance.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
"None of you ..." is one [moral] message of the episode, but it isn't the only one. For instance, as you said yourself, "adultery is a sin" is also a [moral] message of the story.

But the situational context of the episode (set by the part I highlighted in bold earlier) also addresses another question -- how did Jesus view the Mosaic Law/laws? Else ...[text shortened]... need to check the index of the Catechism to see how the Church has read it.

Wow. You think that Jesus thought that it would be just for woman to be executed for committing adultery? Do you think he thought it would be just for a child to be executed for disrespecting his parents?

Originally posted by bbarr
Wow. You think that Jesus thought that it would be just for woman to be executed for committing adultery? Do you think he thought it would be just for a child to be executed for disrespecting his parents?

You didn't read the fine print. Lucifershammer first has to double check with the catechism before he can decide what he thinks about what Jesus thought.

Originally posted by Palynka
Still, the implicit idea that forgiving is better than stoning remains. He himself forgave her.

Note that I don't think forgiveness is the same as neutrality or acceptance.

I think we're now (generally) in agreement.