• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

WWJD - Capital Punishment

Bokonon

New Member
Considering the tale of Jesus and the "harlot".
By Levitical Law, adultery was punishable by death, yet Jesus halted the capital punishment of an adulteress and told the executioners that only those without sin should cast the first stone.
If Jesus was indeed God, then he was the only sinless one there, and he did not pick up a single pebble.

Does this indicate that Jesus was anti-death penalty?
 

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Absolutely not. It meant that Yeshua was all about self atonement for sins. You are one of the few that I have run across that got the meaning of the story--kudos. Yeshua allowed the woman to self judge herself and live the rest of her life with the responsibility of her choices. If she had murdered the question may have been "Let those who have not murdered pull the switch". Then we have a different scenario. The woman was hurting herself whereas the murderer hurt another. The punishment would fit the crime in the eyes of Yeshua, IMO.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Considering the tale of Jesus and the "harlot".
OK …

  1. re the Gospel of John …
    The Gospel of John was written in Greek by an anonymous author. According to Paul N. Anderson, the gospel "contains more direct claims to eyewitness origins than any of the other Gospel traditions". F. F. Bruce argues that 19:35 contains an "emphatic and explicit claim to eyewitness authority". Bart D. Ehrman, however, does not think the gospel claims to have been written by direct witnesses to the reported events.

    The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.

    - source
  2. re the Pericope Adultera …
    The first to systematically apply the critical marks of the Alexandrian critics was Origen:[15]

    "In the Septuagint column [Origen] used the system of diacritical marks which was in use with the Alexandrian critics of Homer, especially Aristarchus, marking with an obelus under different forms, as "./.", called lemniscus, and "/.", called a hypolemniscus, those passages of the Septuagint which had nothing to correspond to in Hebrew, and inserting, chiefly from Theodotion under an asterisk (*), those which were missing in the Septuagint; in both cases a metobelus (Y) marked the end of the notation."​

    Early textual critics familiar with the use and meaning of these marks in classical Greek works like Homer, interpreted the signs to mean that the section (John 7:53-8:11) was an interpolation and not an original part of the Gospel.

    During the 16th Century, Western European scholars – both Catholic and Protestant – sought to recover the most correct Greek text of the New Testament, rather than relying on the Vulgate Latin translation. At this time, it was noticed that a number of early manuscripts containing John's Gospel lacked John 7:53-8:11 inclusive; and also that some manuscripts containing the verses marked them with critical signs, usually a lemniscus or asterisk. It was also noted that, in the lectionary of the Greek church, the set gospel reading for Pentecost runs from John 7:37 to 8:12, but skips over the twelve verses of this pericope.

    Beginning with Lachmann (in Germany, 1840), reservations about the pericope became more strongly argued in the modern period, and these opinions were carried into the English world by Samuel Davidson (1848–1851), Tregelles (1862), and others; the argument against the verses being given body and final expression in Hort (1886). Those opposing the authenticity of the verses as part of John are represented in the 20th century by men like Cadbury (1917), Colwell (1935), and Metzger (1971).

    According to 19th century text critics Henry Alford and F. H. A. Scrivener the passage was added by John in a second edition of the Gospel along with 5:3.4 and the 21st chapter.[citation needed]

    On the other hand, many scholars strongly defend the Johannine authorship of these verses. This group of critics is typified by such scholars as Nolan (1865), and Burgon (1886); and find modern counterparts and apologists in Hoskier (1920), O.T. Fuller (1978), Pickering (1980), Hodges & Farstad (1985), Pierpont, and Robinson (2005).

    Almost all modern translations now include the Pericope de Adultera at John 7:53-8:11; but most enclose it in brackets, and/or add a note concerning the oldest and most reliable witnesses.

    - source

    So you have a likely interpolation of a reasonably late gospel fabricated by someone who very likely never met either Jesus of the 'harlot.'
 

Bokonon

New Member
OK …

  1. re the Gospel of John …
  2. re the Pericope Adultera …

    So you have a likely interpolation of a reasonably late gospel fabricated by someone who very likely never met either Jesus of the 'harlot.'
Most likely.
But since so many take these tales to be true and factual, and consistently imagine what God's will is, I would like their interpretation of the events.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
From a Catholic perspective:

Jesus stood over the fallen woman as the crowd gathered, hefting their stones.

"Let you who is without sin cast the first stone!", He challenged them.
The crowd shuffled, embarrassment spreading.
Then, from the back, a jagged rock flew past Jesus! It caught the adultress right on the face.

Jesus yelled,"Stop it Mom!"

PS I see no reason to believe that Jesus opposed CP. It was common in His day. His opinions on divorce got mentioned, but nothing about CP.

Tom
 

Faybull

Well-Known Member
Considering the tale of Jesus and the "harlot".
By Levitical Law, adultery was punishable by death, yet Jesus halted the capital punishment of an adulteress and told the executioners that only those without sin should cast the first stone.
If Jesus was indeed God, then he was the only sinless one there, and he did not pick up a single pebble.

Does this indicate that Jesus was anti-death penalty?

Israel was an adulterer and God didn't strike him dead either. Not sure the point or question you are asking.
 

Bokonon

New Member
Israel was an adulterer and God didn't strike him dead either. Not sure the point or question you are asking.
God commanded death for adulterers in Leviticus, to be carried out by the people.
Now, Jesus, being God, countermanded his own previous orders concerning the adulteress in the story.

This also brings to mind the vast differences between Yahweh/God and Jesus/God.
 

Faybull

Well-Known Member
God commanded death for adulterers in Leviticus, to be carried out by the people.
Now, Jesus, being God, countermanded his own previous orders concerning the adulteress in the story.

This also brings to mind the vast differences between Yahweh/God and Jesus/God.
 

Faybull

Well-Known Member
I think the distinction here is that they were accusing the adulteress. Without any witnesses. That they were violating the law by accusing her.
 
Top