Threadly reminder you can't slut-shame AND be a Christian (John 8:1-11)

>you should stone a Son of God because it will please the atheist from 4chan

>>17849981 (OP)
Jesus of course implies that the woman's adultery is a sin, it's not okay, however he goes harder on the people who want to stone her than on her and that does contain a lesson. Judemental assholes are the kind of people who get the sharpest rebukes from Jesus.

the point of the passage is that true judgement is reserved to God Alone and that He Alone has the power to forgive sins, unlike Men.
(Also it's a conditional, because the woman is instructed to "sin no more" imperatively, so if she were to fall back into sin that forgiveness is void)

>>17849981 (OP)
This passage was added by a later scribe. It's 100% ahistorical. The Bible has been forged.

>it gives misogyny
>it gives slutshaming
saaaarrrrrr

>>17849981 (OP)
>no way these pharisees are just lying about this woman
>in the middle of the day they caught her in "the very act" and then immediately brought her to the guy they hate most of all
>it definitely wasn't a way to setup Jesus

>>17850393
The whole new testament is "added by later scribes". That line of reasoning doesn't matter.
You know deep down that the lesson being taught is difficult but correct and you're worried you won't be able to repent.

>>17849981 (OP)
Please rope.

>>17850393
Those flames just got hotter. Tick tock.

>>17849981 (OP)
I would have proposed marriage to her, I would be a loving husband and protective pimp, she can fuck anybody she wants but the guy better hand over some some silver coins to me

>>17850393
The whole bible is a fiction

>>17850549
It's the most valuable, authentic, and lucid piece of fiction you've never understood.
Your ego is a fiction of much lesser quality. The bible and its real-world effects will outlast you and it already out-exists you.

We love to revel in the fact that we're "star-dust" and "just a little speck" in the universe but when humility actually matters we have none.

>>17850618
As much as the emboldened ego is antagonistic, so too is the fanatical emphasis of obligation and the blatant manipulation through the virtue of humility. But that is where the inversion is most obvious, and where the line is held to conceal the rotten fruits it consistently produces. To what you venerate is a mediocrity of bedlam. By that I mean, all the struggles and strifes are needless, and all powers on all aisles have obligation to cooperate or resolve beyond a rudimentary binary distinction as it has been repeatedly implied and perpetuated. To do contrary reveals a far more ugly truth, and that is something no side seeks to accept.

>>17850089
But it's an animal

>>17851022
You've gone overboard on the jargon. The excesses of obligation and "binary morality" are already accounted for in the language of the new testament and the new covenant. That's what the crucifixion is about.

>>17849981 (OP)
>Let he without sin cast the first stone
t. Guy without sin
He was just calling dibs

>>17849981 (OP)
It's similar to the scene in John 5 where Jesus also said "sin no more" to another person. The whole scene was a microcosm of what Jesus is doing with the whole world. Patiently giving them space to receive Him as their Lord and Savior, to acknowledge that He is God, so that they can be forgiven. For the time being, judgement is suspended. At this present time, He will still forgive us if we acknowledge Him. But this speaks only to the present time. It doesn't mean there will never be judgement. When a man dies (which could happen any moment) or when Christ returns, that is when judgement is going to be enacted. In the Gospel the Lord makes that clear as well.

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
(John 12:48)

>>17850456
That passage specifically was added later when the gospels already existed; it's fiction even if you grant the gospels are accurate

>>17851332
>it's fiction even if you grant the gospels are accurate
It's present in the vast majority of manuscripts of that part of John, and those that skip it are explained by the lectionary system. On Whitsunday, according to the lectionary system, some churches would read the end of John 7 and then skip to John 8:12. And there are markers in the margins of many copies that have the passage showing this to be the case. See John Burgon's book on the last twelve verses of Mark.

>>17851339
The passage is absent in the older versions; it's irrelevant in how many later manuscripts it exists in

>>17851344
The TR represents the original inspired form of Scripture that has been preserved for all generations, and follows the majority text in most places including here.

>>17851351
Again, that passage is absent in the older manuscripts; the TR is irrelevant

>>17851364
I only care what the original says, not some later corruption.

In this case, there are markings showing that this passage is absent because of the lectionary system. This only affects a small number of copies, and the lectionary reading markings are a dead giveaway of this. If you haven't read John Burgon's book, by all means go ahead. Are you ESL by the way? You keep writing sentences with a semicolon and no punctuation at the end, you've done it three times in a row now. It's eerily like talking to someone who doesn't understand or hasn't read what is being said.

>>17851180
I think he meant his mother.

>>17850393
>This passage was added by a later scribe.
I don't see how that makes it any less valid than the rest of John (or Luke, which some manuscripts have it in). It's not like the rest of the book was written by some reliable, verifiable author
>It's 100% ahistorical.
Maybe, maybe not. Admittedly the idea that everyone just walked away and didn't stone the woman after Jesus shamed them seems pretty improbable, but there could be a grain of historical truth in the tale.

>The Bible has been forged.
That's an oversimplification. None of the canonical gospels were forged because the authors don't claim to be anyone in particular. The titles aren't part of the original texts.

>>17851785
technically if you wanna be anal being a whore is a sin, it's staying a whore that's bad. Finding your value in yourself and god is awesome, I don't think many people are against that idea. God didn't want Mary Magdalene to stay a whore

this is basic Bible cmon

>>17849981 (OP)
actually CHUD just because she he told them not to throw stones at her unless they're sinless doesn't mean he told them not to slut shame her.

>>17851785
>I don't see how that makes it any less valid than the rest of John (or Luke, which some manuscripts have it in).
There is simply no way a story added to John a century or two later goes back to the historical Jesus. It's just super late.

It's ahistorical because it's such a late addition.

>None of the canonical gospels were forged because the authors don't claim to be anyone in particular.
The scribes who added into the Gospels were basically forging in the name of 'whoever were the authors of the Gospels'.

Conservative Christians are what Jesus called "wolves in sheeps clothing". They fool others and delude themselves that they are faithful lambs following the good shepherd. But in reality they are coming up with reasons why it's ok to exploit vulnerable women and children, defending the transgressor and blaming the victim. They are wolves, because they are driven to destroy and consume by an irresistible urge, for sex.