"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[SG9]

...discernment & judgment and tell us if u "see" the difference?

Please, be my guest and do tell us the diff, what do I know?

 

[ewells36]

Here is a great article regarding Let Him Who Is Without Sin, Cast The First Stone. Here is a small snippet from the article on Christianity Today back from 2008

Is 'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone' Biblical?
Scholars are cautious about the story of the woman caught in adultery.
Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra [ posted 4/23/2008 9:15AM ]

When Dallas Theological Seminary professor Daniel Wallace examined New Testament manuscripts stored in the National Archive in Albania last June, he was amazed by what he did not find. The story of the woman caught in adultery, usually found in John 7:53-8:11, was missing from three of the texts, and was out of place in a fourth, tacked on to the end of John's Gospel. "This is way out of proportion for manuscripts from the 9th century and following," Wallace said. "Once we get into that era, the manuscripts start conforming much more to each other. Thus, to find some that didn't have the story is remarkable."

You can read more about it here - Is 'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone' Biblical? | Christianity Today

Christ is everything! He is alive in me today

 

[REPHAIAHPEDAHEL]

Tell them about God's goodness, that's enough to get them to repent. And if they don't want to repent, that's their business.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

WE can judge Christians by tgheir conduct. We ar not to judge those outside the church(I Cor 5:12-13). We are never to judge if someone is a Christian.

What? We can judge Christians by their conduct.. We don't judge non Christians.. Ok got that part. Was the last part a bad typo in some way? I tend to typo or use wrong words due to my iPads autocorrect when I reply using it.

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

What? We can judge Christians by their conduct.. We don't judge non Christians.. Ok got that part. Was the last part a bad typo in some way? I tend to typo or use wrong words due to my iPads autocorrect when I reply using it.

people abuse the word "judgment" way too much in Christian & secular circles, when they mean to say, should say...
"discernment."

There is little wrong in being discerning vis-à-vis, H>S> power/leading.

Learn the differences btwn them folks, o/wise u REMAIN weak, "lack of knowledge" type Christians.

 

[Philpy1976]

The most important bit is that the one and only person in that situation that was truly righteous enough to throw a stone, was the one effectively preventing it.

How can anyone not love this guy/God.

 

[SG9]

Regarding posts 25 & 26, both, in context with what the scriptures say, I see both points and post 26 has the wrong idea about the interpretation of the meaning that is expressed in the discernment of all things. The spiritual man judges all things, but it doesn't say that he's judging anyone's fate. It's meant to say, with 'things' noted is to 'discern' with a righteous judgment of things, but not to say that anyone person is going to heaven or to hell, and this should be understood that many of us who are posting mean one thing while others see it another way because of their misunderstandings. We are not being judgmental of anyone's personal relationship with or without God, I hope. Thanks

 

[butterflyAway]

If we are all saved by grace what difference does it make if we judge one another other than it being morally wrong? I don't think judging somebody is right i'm just saying theres more important things to focus on instead of worrying about going to hell for judging someone else. I don't think when Jesus said "Do not judge, or you will be judged" applys to those under a state of grace. You have to remember who Jesus was speaking to when he gave these teachings, He was speaking to the Jews under the Old covenant, not Christains under the new covenant. The Gospels were written about a time period which existed before the new covenant was even established. That really makes you think twice about what Jesus was trying to tell us modern Christains doesn't it?

The gospel is about grace, not condemnation. In other words its more about freedom through faith in Jesus than watching your back every time you sin (fearing some sort of judgment)

 

[branchofthevine]

Jesus also said "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24).

So, how does that fit in with John 8:1-11

 

[butterflyAway]

Jesus also said "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24).

So, how does that fit in with John 8:1-11

Exactly.

I think sometimes people will read one verse in the bible and it speaks to them so deeply that they sometimes don't understand what its really trying to say.

Because honestly its almost impossible not to judge others, thats kind of like the commandment not to covet, its in our human nature to do both of these on a daily basis.

Thats why if I preach on something I always make sure I'm preaching the Gospel, and when I say I preach the Gospel I mean I preach grace and thats about it. Grace is the gospel!

 

[pshun2404]

This passage refers back to the law of the witness (I think Deut 17)....the actual witnesses must be there and must throw the first stone...the alleged witnesses were not there....the required male part of the offense (also to be stoned) was not there....perhaps many there had visited her tent...

Jesus response was actually Torah....no appropriate perpetrators...no actual witnesses...thus a violation of the commandment (bearing false witness). Now it may or may not have been true, but the event was contrived. It was they who made it an issue of the law but in fact were in violation of the law.

What do you think He wrote on the ground? Perhaps this commandment or the law of the witness or a list of names of males present who slept with her...Hmmm?

Paul

 

[butterflyAway]

This passage refers back to the law of the witness (I think Deut 17)....the actual witnesses must be there and must throw the first stone...the alleged witnesses were not there....the required male part of the offense (also to be stoned) was not there....perhaps many there had visited her tent...

Jesus response was actually Torah....no appropriate perpetrators...no actual witnesses...thus a violation of the commandment (bearing false witness). Now it may or may not have been true, but the event was contrived. It was they who made it an issue of the law but in fact were in violation of the law.

What do you think He wrote on the ground? Perhaps this commandment or the law of the witness or a list of names of males present who slept with her...Hmmm?

Paul

One problem, it never says the witnesses were not there to begin with or all the reqiured perpetrators. The male could have been in the same room as all of them for all we know.

But what you are saying does make some sense because it says the teachers were trying to trap him. Good thinking.

I am starting to conclude that Jesus realized what they were doing and how they were trying to trap him, possible he wrote the law on the ground and then when he spoke he turned it around on them?

 

[Unix]

Exactly! That, and the fact that the passage isn't original Scripture (clear from that the passage 7:53-8:11 has been moved around in the oldest surviving manuscripts to different locations in the New Testament), were the reasons for the exclusion of 7:53-8:11 from the 1946 Revised Standard Version New Testament. If You read bible-researcher.com article about RSV (1946) You can see that the exclusion of the passage was a major improvement of the RSV over all other Bible versions. Very few versions, no other major versions and not even the later RSV Editions have followed the convention of excluding the passage. The RSV was and is one of the few major Bible versions in English, (the most recent Edition of it, the 1971 one is good):

I really hate when people use this verse when they have sined, and when someone corrects them that what they are doing is wrong because they LOVE them and don't want them to go to hell, they use this verse (twisted of chourse) to "justify" what they do.

However, I have several good commentaries on the Gospel of Jn, and I'm yet to read two of them (of which one is on the way by postal mail and will arrive approximately between Christmas and New Year) as I've bought them recently. One of them, Baker New Testament Commentary (HK) says that it's good to preach 7:53-8:11, and that's a top-notch commentary. It's extremely highly ranked on bestcommentaries.com for a very old commentary, and I like the set very much myself and You can see that the set is mentioned (abbreviated) in the top right corner of all my posts. Out of the other two commentaries I'm guessing that the one which is arriving by postal mail is also for the passage to some extent, but that the other commentary is against it.
So the "scale" is showing about 50% for and 50% against the use of the passage.

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

Exactly! That, and the fact that the passage isn't original Scripture (clear from that the passage 7:53-8:11 has been moved around in the oldest surviving manuscripts to different locations in the New Testament), were the reasons for the exclusion of 7:53-8:11 from the 1946 Revised Standard Version New Testament. If You read bible-researcher.com article about RSV (1946) You can see that the exclusion of the passage was a major improvement of the RSV over all other Bible versions. Very few versions, no other major versions and not even the later RSV Editions have followed the convention of excluding the passage. The RSV was and is one of the few major Bible versions in English, (the most recent Edition of it, the 1971 one is good):



However, I have several good commentaries on the Gospel of Jn, and I'm yet to read two of them (of which one is on the way by postal mail and will arrive approximately between Christmas and New Year) as I've bought them recently. One of them, Baker New Testament Commentary (HK) says that it's good to preach 7:53-8:11, and that's a top-notch commentary. It's extremely highly ranked on bestcommentaries.com for a very old commentary, and I like the set very much myself and You can see that the set is mentioned (abbreviated) in the top right corner of all my posts. Out of the other two commentaries I'm guessing that the one which is arriving by postal mail is also for the passage to some extent, but that the other commentary is against it.
So the "scale" is showing about 50% for and 50% against the use of the passage.

....RSV better (via yer exclusion of passage where in article?) than ASV as the link u gave states the opposite or a criticism of the RSV when compared to ASV.

don't see anywhere after quick survey of article, any ref to left out passages, unless yer making ref to the Apocrypha/catholic paragraphs that don't garner my attn. ever.

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

This passage refers back to the law of the witness (I think Deut 17)....the actual witnesses must be there and must throw the first stone...the alleged witnesses were not there....the required male part of the offense (also to be stoned) was not there....perhaps many there had visited her tent...

Jesus response was actually Torah....no appropriate perpetrators...no actual witnesses...thus a violation of the commandment (bearing false witness). Now it may or may not have been true, but the event was contrived. It was they who made it an issue of the law but in fact were in violation of the law.

What do you think He wrote on the ground? Perhaps this commandment or the law of the witness or a list of names of males present who slept with her...Hmmm?

Paul

...Methinks that Yeshuas pt of "he who is sinless..." would've trumped even the male being present (for stoning) as well; thereby negating yer pt on Torah/legalistic grounds.

One could argue also, that the accusers stated they "caught her in the act of adultery.." also. Assuming this to be true would also render yer pt moot. Assuming I understood u correctly, that is.

 

[Unix]

It's there, under the heading Bible 1952, towards the end of the section. I quote: "On the other hand, we may say that the RSV committee went too far in accommodating tradition when, for their second edition, they decided to re-insert the Story of the Adulteress in the eighth chapter of John's Gospel. In the 1946 RSV New Testament and in the first edition of the complete Bible, the committee omitted this apocryphal story (relegating it to the margin), in accordance with the longstanding and unanimous judgment of textual scholars. It took some courage for them to do this, because the story is quite popular in the churches—especially among those who find it convenient as a supporting text for antinomian teachings. There must have been many complaints about this, and the restoration of the passage in the RSV's second edition was not surprising. The claim made in the preface to the second edition, that it “profits from textual and linguistic studies published since the Revised Standard Version New Testament was first issued in 1946,” seems rather hollow in view of this. If there was anything in the first edition of the RSV that can be called a substantial improvement over past English versions in the presentation of textual scholarship, it was the omission of this passage."

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

It's there, under the heading Bible 1952, towards the end of the section. I quote: "On the other hand, we may say that the RSV committee went too far in accommodating tradition when, for their second edition, they decided to re-insert the Story of the Adulteress in the eighth chapter of John's Gospel. In the 1946 RSV New Testament and in the first edition of the complete Bible, the committee omitted this apocryphal story (relegating it to the margin), in accordance with the longstanding and unanimous judgment of textual scholars. It took some courage for them to do this, because the story is quite popular in the churches—especially among those who find it convenient as a supporting text for antinomian teachings. There must have been many complaints about this, and the restoration of the passage in the RSV's second edition was not surprising. The claim made in the preface to the second edition, that it “profits from textual and linguistic studies published since the Revised Standard Version New Testament was first issued in 1946,” seems rather hollow in view of this. If there was anything in the first edition of the RSV that can be called a substantial improvement over past English versions in the presentation of textual scholarship, it was the omission of this passage."

Not sure who exactly the "we" is (in ref to authors) but methinks "substantial improvement" is extremely subjective and therefore argumentative as well.
Original texts of Jn 8:7 (in particular) may or may not have included this 'passage.' We don't/won't know, unless photo copies of scholarly commentaries (preferably ancient) are still available to convince the most skeptical of readers/researchers. Makes one wonder/ponder the "Q" connections, possibilities that may've existed...."back in the day."

Having found English inconsistencies in translating the Hebrew/Greek scripts, does lead this reader/worshiper to read the heb/greek himself.

Yet, were the greek scribes (Jewish?) as meticulously renowned as the Hebrew scribes in copying/translating ancient texts?

Just proves the dire need for H>S> leading/guidance/teaching & intervention, if necessary.

 

[Emmy]

Dear RoryIsABeliever. Even if it is not exactly how Jesus said it, Jesus meant it.
In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus told a Lawyer: " The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, withal thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: Love thy neighbour as thyself." That is very straightforward and easy enough for a child to understand. The important ending which Jesus tells the guilty woman: " Do not do it again," gives the whole picture. The accusers all slunk away, because Jesus presents the case wonderfully. " WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE." That should always be a reminder to us. God is the final Judge, and God will NOT be mocked. ( Galatians 6: 7-10) God`s eternal Law of Justice will always be at work: whatever we sow we will also reap: blessings and rewards for following God`s Commandments of Love, and fitting consequences for ignoring God`s Commandments, or going against them.
Jesus told us in Matthew: " On those two Commandments, hang all the Law and the Prophets." God is Love and God wants our Love. For God first, and for our neighbour as we love ourselves. Jesus will give us His Love and Joy, and the Holy Spirit will empower us with His Love, also. Jesus told us what to do:
" ask God and ye shall receive," then thank God and share all Love and Joy with our neighbour. ( Matthew 7: 7-10) We keep asking and thanking God, then share all Love and joy with all around us. God is Love, and God wants loving children/sons and daughters. That will not come easy to many of us, but it is what God wants from us. Jesus will help and guide us: JESUS IS THE WAY. We may stumble and forget at times, but then we ask God to forgive us,
and carry on loving and caring. God will see our sincere efforts, and God will bless us. I say this with love, Rory. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.