Remember, we’re talking about Saul/Paul pre-conversion. The man who persecuted Christians.
Paul was a bit of a party-pooper. The old “those that protest too much …”. I blame the lack of [del] porn [/del] internet back then. 
“We”? I thought “we” were talking about Paul and what he wrote in his Epistles and how he hated sex and all forms of pleasure :dubious: - after his conversion.
But the verse quoted something that supposedly happened while Jesus was still alive…back before Saul became Paul.
Also, Post #50 once again. The Paul hated all sorts of sex and pleasure is not exactly a warranted critique.
In addition, some of the stuff that folks blame Paul for are either normal or highly progressive for the era he’s living under. I mean, for one, do we actually think that women could speak in Temple? (or were even allowed to be there) And there is some discussion that Paul’s words about the women speaking are specific to that instance. Some speculate that it refers to certain disruptive women.
We run into issues at times in trying to translate Koine Greek into modern day English. Certain things may get lost in translation and we would be careful to consider that (especially when you consider Paul speaks very highly of women in high positions of the early Church - Junia, Priscilla, etc).
Here is an interesting treatment (which you may or may not find convincing) about when Paul was speaking of women being silent in church, it was a temporary silence referring to disruptions in the Church in Corinth, not a general proscription:
http://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women9
Also, it’d be good to remember that Paul is writing letters BACK to churches. We don’t know what the churches are writing to Paul about and therefore we don’t know exactly what Paul is responding to.
There is a passage which I can’t find right now, but I sent out a couple of emails to some better-versed friends, so I hope to locate it soon, that instructs a man with multiple wives that if two of his wives are sisters, he can’t have sex with the two sisters at the same time. This leads one to the obvious conclusion that in a polygamous situation, three-ways are fine, as long as the two women are NOT related. There are no other special instructions, like, the women are to refrain from touching each other, but if they touch accidentally, it’s OK, or anything, so again, we can presume that a three-way is pretty much whatever floats your boat. As long as no seed is spilt, so I guess masturbating while watching the women together is out.
As far as “where is the man?” He isn’t necessary to the story. The story is more poignant with just the woman. The man isn’t necessary. Maybe he was brought to the stoning block next, and Jesus says “Sheesh, did you guys totally miss the point?” but that would be anti-climactic. Or maybe they had just finished stoning him, and then brought the woman up, in which case, it sounds like Jesus was a little late to the party, which takes off some of the shine, if you’ll forgive me mixing metaphors. Or else, Jesus stood by, watched them stone the man, and then stepped forward to save the woman, which is a mixed message, at best.
It’s probably a completely invented story, and works best the way it is, but even if it is based on a real occurrence, the author has selected the details that best convey the message.
Moreover, this is another example (albeit, most of the others are in the synoptics), where the Pharisees come to Jesus with some sort of question that suggests a very law-&-order, Rabbi Shammai-type answer, and instead, Jesus gives a Rabbi Hillel answer. Hillel once said (in Pirkei Avot 2:4) “Pass not judgment upon thy neighbor until thou hast put thyself in his place.” Jesus also cribbed “Do unto others, etc.” from Hillel, and the bit about the two greatest laws.
Shammai & Hillel were the sort of bad-cop/good-cop of very, very early rabbinicalism, before it was even called that. Shammai was a strict constructionist, who was more interested in the literal meaning of the Torah, while Hillel always had a kinder, gentler interpretation. There’s even a story where HaShem himself supposedly came down upon a group of rabbis who were arguing over whether Shammai or Hillel was correct about something. HaShem said “Shammai is correct. Do what Hillel says anyway.” Jesus is very Hillel-y.
And on a barely related note: Even though I’m not Catholic (or even Christian) I really like this new pope. And I agree that Jesus was very Hillel-y. I don’t know exactly where the Phelps family gets their theology from, but it’s certainly not from Jesus.
They call themselves “Baptists” but their theology is Calvinist: