Mary Magdalene.

[jeremyp]

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Were any of them the other party in the adultery case?

Did Jesus exonerate the woman? Does he say she did not sin? 

[Rhiannon]

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Have you considered taking this on board yourself, Hope?

[Brownie]

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Hope quoted this to illustrate that Jesus knew the men were sinful - maybe even more sinful than the poor woman - and they turned away in shame.  Which illustrates the importance of judging ourselves before we take the higher moral stance over someone else.   Jesus often pointed out that people are all too quick to pass judgement.
Luke 6:42 (NIV)
How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

[Hope]

Were any of them the other party in the adultery case?

Did they need to be?  They were using her as a trap for Jesus.  The story doesn't even conform that she had been adulterous.

The last couple verses of the passage, which say

⁹ At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. ¹⁰ 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.”

can be taken in a number of ways, from 'sin' in a general sense to 'sin' in the specific sense.  Even in the latter case, the teachers of the law and the Pharisees had failed in their responsibility to arrest the man she had been being adulterous with.

Did Jesus exonerate the woman? Does he say she did not sin?

See above.

[floo]

Did they need to be?  They were using her as a trap for Jesus.  The story doesn't even conform that she had been adulterous.

The last couple verses of the passage, which say can be taken in a number of ways, from 'sin' in a general sense to 'sin' in the specific sense.  Even in the latter case, the teachers of the law and the Pharisees had failed in their responsibility to arrest the man she had been being adulterous with.
See above.

Jesus was in no position to condemn anyone, the guy was hardly 'sinless' himself.

[jeremyp]

Jesus was in no position to condemn anyone, the guy was hardly 'sinless' himself.

Yes, that is the obvious point to draw from the story. The stoners were unable to condemn the woman because none of them were sinless. When Jesus said he was also unable to condemn her, the obvious conclusion is that he was also not sinless.

[Sassy]

King James Bible
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

[floo]

Yes, that is the obvious point to draw from the story. The stoners were unable to condemn the woman because none of them were sinless. When Jesus said he was also unable to condemn her, the obvious conclusion is that he was also not sinless.

Yep.

[Khatru]

Of course, the fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in our earliest bibles. The whole thing was made up and added many years later as an embelishment.

[Brownie]

It also doesn't have anything to do with Mary Magdalene who is only described as a woman who sinned, we don't actually know what sin but being as everyone sins she was not remarkable for that fact.  No-one was planning to stone her as far as I recall.

[Hope]

Of course, the fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in our earliest bibles. The whole thing was made up and added many years later as an embelishment.

OK, when was it added?

[Hope]

When Jesus said he was also unable to condemn her, the obvious conclusion is that he was also not sinless.

Why?

He didn't say that he 'couldn't condemn her'; he said "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."  In other words, he acknowledges that she was a sinner, quite possibly in the way in which she had been accused of, but was forgiving her of the sin.  Remember that, in those times, it was believed that only God could forgive sins.  If anything, what he said reinforced his claim to be God incarnate.

[Brownie]

I couldn't understand why people thought there was an implication, from what he said, that Jesus also sinned, so thanks for that.

[Khatru]

OK, when was it added?

Can't say for sure but it wasn't there about 1600 years ago approximately 350 CE.

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

[Hope]

Can't say for sure but it wasn't there about 1600 years ago approximately 350 CE.

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Don't worry, I'm not trying to refute your suggestion (a statement along the lines of "The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11" has been in just about every Bible I've ever known).  Its just interesting to see when it did appear.  You suggest post Sinaticus. I've heard some suggest later than that again; some slightly earlier and have quoted manuscripts I'd never heard of.

[floo]

Don't worry, I'm not trying to refute your suggestion (a statement along the lines of "The earliest manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11" has been in just about every Bible I've ever known).  Its just interesting to see when it did appear.  You suggest post Sinaticus. I've heard some suggest later than that again; some slightly earlier and have quoted manuscripts I'd never heard of.

So what if they have, it still doesn't make them have any veracity.

[Brownie]

That was not the question floo! 

[Hope]

So what if they have, it still doesn't make them have any veracity.

Floo, I realise that some of the questions on this and other threads have made you uncomfortable, but that that isn't a good reason to try to stop discussion.

[floo]

Floo, I realise that some of the questions on this and other threads have made you uncomfortable, but that that isn't a good reason to try to stop discussion.

They don't make me uncomfortable in the slightest, LOL.

[jeremyp]

Of course, the fable of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery doesn't appear in our earliest bibles. The whole thing was made up and added many years later as an embelishment.

That was going to be my next point. This story is a late interpolation and cannot be traced back to the first century.

[jeremyp]

Why?

He didn't say that he 'couldn't condemn her'; he said "Neither do I condemn you

So the parallel with the stoners is that he also was not without sin. It's pretty simple and obvious, why don'y you get it?

go, and from now on sin no more."  In other words, he acknowledges that she was a sinner, quite possibly in the way in which she had been accused of, but was forgiving her of the sin.  Remember that, in those times, it was believed that only God could forgive sins.  If anything, what he said reinforced his claim to be God incarnate.

It seems to me that you are reading exactly what you want into the story without taking notice of what it says.

[Hope]

So the parallel with the stoners is that he also was not without sin. It's pretty simple and obvious, why don'y you get it?

Because you're fogetting the context; he has forgiven her, and only God can forgive her - so by forgiving her Jesus claims divinity.  Or are you saying that God can sin?

It seems to me that you are reading exactly what you want into the story without taking notice of what it says.

Interesting that that is what I've been pointing out to you as to what you are doing.

[Hope]

They don't make me uncomfortable in the slightest, LOL.

Well, why are you so keen to dismiss the ideas, in the context of this (and other) thread's discussions?

[floo]

Well, why are you so keen to dismiss the ideas, in the context of this (and other) thread's discussions?

Because there is nothing to support the existence of any deity, let alone the Biblical one and all that is claimed about it, and its so called 'son'.

[Brownie]

You say that, in different words, over and over, floo, and we all understand that is what you believe.  Why not engage in the discussion?  It can be interesting whatever you believe.