Dio, there’s a difference between condemnation and judgement. Jesus’s judgement is clearly against adulterous behaviour. That is the basis for his command to the woman to desist from adultery in the future.
Well, IF (and that’s a MIGHTY big IF) the Centurions 'servant" was his catamite, then Jesus was the opposite of condemning. But it does go to show His nature, healing even a Pagan servant of the nation that oppressed Isreal. I don’t know if He was the “son of God” but He was a great man.
He condemned moral judgement and reminded us both that none of us possess the first stone.
Moreover, he did not tell her not to commit adultery, he told her not to sin (You think those Pharisees were sophists? They didn’t have nuthin’ on me. ;)).
Obviously an impossible request and one that he could not have expected her to follow. This must mean that his words were not to be taken literally but meant something more symbolic. Let’s really examine this, shall we?
Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11"No one, sir," she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
(John 8:10,11)
The way I see it. Jesus is employing a little gentle humor. Jesus is asking her why she’s still there if she’s been condemned. She says the accusers have all left. This means that legally, if there is no accuser, there is no finding of “sin” (BTW, the accuser always threw the first stone. Jesus switched it up on them. He made it impossible for there to be a legal accuser). So then Jesus says, "I don’t condemn you either, [symbol]mhketi amartane[/symbol] (“Err no more”).
If you studied Greek, you may know that the verb hamartano means literally “to fall short, to err, to fail.”
It means “to sin” only in an indirect way (the same as those translations would in English).
From the way I read it then. Interpreting this as an (impossible) command to never commit another sin is not necessarily the most likely way to look at it. “Meketi harmato” could just as easily mean something more akin to "be careful out there.
Now, of course Jesus was speaking Aramaic, not Greek, and we don’t know what he said in Aramaic, but I do think that the fact that Jesus says “I do not condemn you” really lets out any “tough love” exegesis.
Oh, and just be a pain in the ass, I’ll point out that nowhere in this pericope does Jesus concede that adultery is a sin.
If he knew his Torah, and all the signs suggest that he did, then he would have taken it as read, I think.
I son’t think we know enough to come to any conclusions one way or another about the relationship of the centaurian and his servant. The “catamite” practice did *exist]/i] but Romans also kept other servants, including young males, that they weren’t having sex with, and doubtless some of the Romans were even capable of forming affectionate or protective feelings for them.
In any case, the intention of this Q pericope seems to be (as you said} to show Jesus’ kindness to not just a pagan, but a member of a hated class that was occupying Palestine (kind of like if a French Jew had come to the aid of a Nazi soldier during the French occupation).
I agree that Jesus was a great man, by the way.
Jesus’ adherence to Torah could at times be a little…shall we say…casual?
Hm.
Jesus doesn’t seem to have said anything about the Man involved, who had been part of the adultery, either.
And just to be a pain back, I will point out that you are mistaken. The “no more” part clearly conveys that her previous adultery was, in fact, sinful.
And there are a few other places where Jesus condemns adultery fairly unambigously. Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
And you see, this is why people in the 21st century should not be living our day-to-day lives according to books written thousands of years ago. I mean, by the year 1000 A.D., most people had gotten over worshipping Zeus or Ba’al. Now that we have nuclear weapons, we no longer have the luxury of taking the Old and New Testaments and the Koran literally.
As recent events have shown . . .
Ah but look at it in context: "*27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” * Thus, we are all sinners, and thus you should not condemn those who sin.
To be fair, Jesus did include Adultery in his “short list” :Matthew 19
17And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, "You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself" But as has been shown, unless you are without sin yourself, you should be forgiving.
But I can’t find a verse where He condemns Fornication, which is what we were talking about. It is known He never spoke out against Gay sex or Homosexuality. It is interesting to note that those Xtians who get all het up about the “10 Commandments” that Jesus brought the list down to 6 or so.
Meketi hamartane means “make no more errors.” It does not necessarily convey moral “sin” the way you think of it, nor does it have to imply that the “errors” included adultery.
I will also reiterate that telling her not to ever sin again would constutute an impossible demand, so that couldn’t have been what he meant. Plus he said he didn’t condemn her. That can only mean that he didn’t think she’d done anything wrong.
They’re not part of this pericope, though, are they. 
I disagree that Jesus really condemns adultery in those passages so much as just defines it in away that makes it impossible not to commit. Once again, this is about the unavoidable hypocrisy of moral judgement, not about adultery, per se.
The stuff about divorce is not about adulterous sex but about treating women as disposable objects.
Ultimately, Jesus says the only two laws that matter are to love God and love your neighbor. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, he defines those two laws as synonomous.
So basically, as long as you love your neighbor as yourself you’re good to go, according to Jesus.
He also said not to judge and that he doesn’t judge.
I think some people read way too much into Meketi hamartane because they just can’t believe it that Jesus would let someone so horrible as [shudder] an adulterous woman go scott free without some sort of moralistic harrangue.
Believe it. Remember, Jesus said that pretty much everyone is an adulterer, so no one in is a position to judge anyone else.
In the Greek NT, the word typically used for judge is ‘krino’. The English word ‘criticism’ is derived from this word, one of whose earliest attested uses means to sort the wheat from the chaff. This idea of sorting out the good from the bad is still present in the modern sense of criticism, as in literary criticism.
The word used for condemn is ‘kata-krino’, where the force of the prefix, meaning ‘against’, leads to the translation condemn (or make a judgement against).
In the story of the woman caught in adultery, ‘katakrino’ is used twice (each time by Jesus):
‘Has no one condemned you?’ (John 8: 10)
‘Neither do I condemn you.’ (John 8: 11)
The matter of judgement is not raised by Jesus. His enemies were trying to trick him by hauling a woman they’d (rather conveniently) caught in the very act of adultery (verse 4). Sounds like a set-up job so they could see how he’d wriggle out of agreeing with them that the Mosaic Law should be put into effect and the woman stoned. They were self-righteous, they were hypocrites; Jesus knew this and called their bluff. They crawled away, leaving Jesus and the woman not alone, though, because Jesus had attracted a large crowd of people that morning, and was teaching them at the temple before his enemies rushed in with their prey (verses 2-3).
The idea that ‘meketi hamartane’ should be understood to mean ‘make no more errors’ or ‘be careful out there’ (as Dio suggests earlier) in this context is most unlikely. Not only was adultery a serious sin, but Jesus had used the word (or is recorded as having used an Aramaic word that is very similar, to be precise) in his famous, and devastatingly effective, challenge to his enemies:
‘Ho anamarteros humon protos ep auten baleto lithon’ (verse 7)
[The sinless of you first on her let him throw a stone]
or ‘Let him who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her’
Adultery’s the charge, a serious sin, punishable by stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Jesus triumphs by the simple expedient of inviting the man who has no sin to chuck the first stone. They creep off.
**Dio ** says that Jesus said not to judge and that Jesus doesn’t judge.
Well, I’d say he’s mostly right in the first part and essentially wrong on the second. I have always felt that those who believe in Jesus are expected to act like him in every way, except one. Thus, when Paul encourages us to ‘grow up into him who is the Head in all things’ (Ephesians 4: 15), this means that we should aspire to live the way he did and do the things he did. The one exception is that we should not judge others. This job is reserved for himself.
On the other hand, we *are * encouraged to be fruit inspectors (Matthew 7: 16), to recognise whether someone who speaks on God’s behalf is genuine or not. We can make a judgement about these people based on the way they act. Of course, we cannot judge them in the sense of whether they are fit to live with God forever. That’s not our job.
Regarding the claim that Jesus doesn’t judge, one need only look a little earlier in John’s book. Much of the latter half of Chapter 5 concerns this subject. I believe verses 22-23 summarises the position best (in Jesus’ own words):
‘The Father judges no one, but had given all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.’
More accurately “he who is without flaw,” but even so, the point here is not that the woman is a sinner but that no one on earth has the right to judge her. Jesus further clarified that he did not judge her either.
Paul is irrelevant. Paul did not speak for Jesus.
This is not about moral judgement but about recognizing true from false teachings. It just means that you can tell whether someone is teaching the truth by how they behave. It doesn’t say anything about passing moral judgement.
These are some of the most patently inauthentic words attributed to Jesus. He didn’t say them.
You know, just about every month, some one starts a “Christianity vs homosexuality” thread. In it, they always start out with completly wrong assumptions. First of all- “Christianity” isn’t monolithic. Next- the dudes that hate gays are a small minority. But don’t worry- they are ‘equal-opportunity haters’ as they hate YOU, too. And me. Pretty well, they think everyone that isn’t a member of their weird sect is going to hell- and they “ain’t really sure about Brother Bubba over there.” (They also are sexists too, so, don’t feel left out, girls).
Most Xtians have no real problems with homosexuality. However- those weird fundie sects will do nothing worse that try and make sure that gay couples don’t marry. Annoying, but harmless.
OTOH, if you’re gay in a fundie Moslem nation- they kill you. So- why no threads about “Moslems vs Homosexuality”?
And next time some seagull starts a thread like this, instead of making him happy by us engaging in a 3 page debate about it- why don’t just one of us come in, post a dozen links to prior threads asking the exact same damn question- and then the rest of us staying out? Ok, dudes? ;j
FYI, DD, and to repeat what I’ve written elsewhere, I support the separation of church and state and I also support same-sex marriages.
But, yeah, your point’s a good one.
on adultery:
I see in many instances, a wife has trouble conceiving, so her husband has sex (with her consent) with her slavewoman so SHE can conceive.
Isn’t this adultery? yet God is okay with it.
DrDeth, I agree with what you’re saying, but I’m trying to do my homework here. 
Two more questions:
1.) Were non-Jews required to follow the laws that were laid out in Leviticus, including Lev 18:22 and 20:13?
2.) Would it be safe to say that anyone who uses Lev 18:22 and 20:13 to condemn homosexuality while wearing a shirt made of 2 different types of material is a hypocrite?
I don’t agree with this. Of the biggest, mainstream denominations, only the Episcopals allow homosexuals a role in the church’s leadership, and that’s causing a scism in the larger Anglican Church and within the U.S. even. Methodists allow that homos can be full members of the church, but to be leaders they must be celibate. Most of the others, Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, etc. call for us to change in order to be true Christians.
The Religious Society of Friends and Unitarians are about the only ones who really accept us as we are.
I apologize for coming into this thread somewhat late. It escaped my notice until now, but I have some comments to make on posts which may be a bit old. Forgive me.
FirarTed, from post # 21:
While I can’t speak from a Christian perspective, I think your perception of the Rabbinic viewpoint on contraception is incorrect. The Talmud lists several categories of women who would be allowed to use a contraceptive sponge. The parameters within which modern Rabbis allow contraceptive usage are all based in ancient tradition, not modern challenge.
Rucksinator, from post # 89:
… where he argued that this was said after David married Saul’s daughter, and that it meant that David was now his son-in-law a second time, i.e. he was essentially his son-in-law previously through Jonathan, and now through his daughter.
[/quote]
That interpretation of verse 18:21 is absurd, considering the context. The prior verses of the chapter refer to Saul’s eldest daughter Meirab being promised to David, and Saul’s giving her instead to another man, and then speak of Saul’s second daughter, Michal, being in love with David. It’s quite clear from the chapter in its entirety that the “twain” (translated in the NIV as “a second opportunity to be the king’s son-in-law”) refers to Meirab and Michal. Jonathan has nothing to do with that.
As for the overall issue of David possibly having had a homosexual sexual relationship with Jonathan, you’d be well advised to consider I Kings 15:5, which says
I imagine we can agree that, ambiguous as the Christian scriptures might be, the Old Testament considers male homosexual sex a sin? That being the case, the above-quoted verse would definitely indicate that he did not do that.
DocCathode, from post # 98:
The story about the “one leg” is Hillel (and it wasn’t “various rabbis”, it was one other before Hillel - Shammai, the head of Hillel’s rival school. And Shammai’s refusal to do what the convert asked was not that he lacked the ability or Hillel’s knowledge to make the statement he did, but that he was angered by the gentile’s audacity), but Rabbi Akiva made a similar statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself, this is the great principle of the Torah.”
Of course, you’ve got to realize that neither of them were saying that “the Golden Rule” is more important to the exclusion of any other commandments. On the contrary if you read their statements in full, they are saying that the other commandments are COMMENTARIES OF, or FACETS OF this one principle, and that it is by doing those that one fulfills the Golden Rule.
Speaking on behalf of myself, Siege, Baker, Skammer, Eggerhaus, and the rest of the small Episcopal contingent here:
We. Are. Fucking. Trying.
There is a lot of ignorance out there which needs fighting. The majority among Episcopalians has no problem with gay people, but we do have a vocal minority who do, and a number of people with nuanced stands like Skammer who do consider homosexual acts as sinful but figure that the issue only arises when some public action appears to be condoning that sin – otherwise, he and people like him consider that your sins are your business, and they have enough to do dealing with their own sinful tendencies not to get on your case. For most of us, though, the evident love and wish to marry are not delimited by genitalia.