Was Jesus using the tu quoque, or did he have a point?

[Nearly Sane]

Do you need to be without 'sin'?


http://biblehub.com/john/8-7.htm

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you need to be without 'sin'?

For what?

[jeremyp]

For what?

To cast the first stone.

I thought you were a Christian. You should know that one.

[jeremyp]

Fun fact: the story of the adulteress was not in early manuscripts of the Bible. It was interpolated several hundred years after the gospel was written.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fun fact: the story of the adulteress was not in early manuscripts of the Bible. It was interpolated several hundred years after the gospel was written.

If we were to dismiss anything produced several hundred years later that would mean we would have to dismiss Ehrman and Carrier and anyone else.

[jeremyp]

If we were to dismiss anything produced several hundred years later that would mean we would have to dismiss Ehrman and Carrier and anyone else.

Yes, obviously we would if they were claiming their writings came from the mouth of Jesus.

[Nearly Sane]

For what?

Throwing the first stone? Hint hint

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Throwing the first stone? Hint hint

Aaaaaaah that's what you mean, the word sin does occur throughout the NT.

Anyway Sane your OP is a belter of a question.

God forbid one should use a tu quoque even if there is a life at stake.........Do you ever think that years of hanging around this forum has affected your judgment?