[Mistress Cookie]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

I do not think that this story is artificial and introduced by liberals. I must defend the newer members Godfly and A Follower, since they both reaffirm the fact that as Christians, the AV1611 KJV is the only True Word of God©.

So...the passages John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20 are still in? I pulled them out after reading Brother Basher's warning



I'm confused ! !

[Meek and Humble]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

A so-called True Christian™ telling me and everyone who visits this site the Bible is wrong is no way to treat anyone, not fellow Christians, not even heathens, and far worse than a few words that might be misconstrued as an insult, but in reality were solely meant to shock HB awake and out of the devil's clutches.

http://www.conservapedia.com/John_8-14_(Translated)

"The evidence is overwhelming that verses 1 - 11 are not original to John. See Essay:Adulteress Story for an extended examination of the issues relating to this passage, including the talk pages of that essay. You can also see the wikipedia article on this story, which contains a very detailed and accurate listing of the textual evidence relating to this story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery (the one note I would make relating to the textual evidence is that most scholars now agree that P66 and P75 are second century documents, not third century, as this article states). See the talk page here for an explanation of my views and reasoning regarding this passage, including why I believe this event actually happened, but still hold that it should NOT be included in the bible. "

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

were solely meant to shock HB awake and out of the devil's clutches

I don't doubt you meant well.

[A Follower]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

While you might have been right I think "it all sounds more akin a pedophile papist's rants than anything" is not a proper way to address a True Christian™.

A so-called True Christian(tm) telling me and everyone who visits this site the Bible is wrong is no way to treat anyone, not fellow Christians, not even heathens, and far worse than a few words that might be misconstrued as an insult, but in reality were solely meant to shock HB awake and out of the devil's clutches.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Thank you for your wise words, Reverend. We're all blessed that the Bible allows you to lovingly cast stones at heathens. I will pray to God to make the warnings HB dished out in his anger disappear, so none of us will be reminded of any unkind things said in the heat of the moment.

While you might have been right I think "it all sounds more akin a pedophile papist's rants than anything" is not a proper way to address a True Christian(tm).

[A Follower]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

I do not think that this story is artificial and introduced by liberals. I must defend the newer members Godfly and A Follower, since they both reaffirm the fact that as Christians, the AV1611 KJV is the only True Word of God©.

It is important to remember that this story does not mean Jesus permits people to sin at will, or is against capital punishment. Jesus tells the Pharisees (Jews) that if they are without sin, then they can cast the first stone. Since they are Jews, and haven't accepted Christ as their savior, then they have sin.

We must also heed Jesus's final words..."Go and sin no more". This is a commandment to not sin again. Yet a liberal "Christian" will tell you that Christians aren't perfect and sin all the time, yet here is Jesus telling these false Christians "No, you are wrong. I expect my followers to not sin at all!"

I understand that liberal false Christians have hijacked this story and turned it into a "thou shalt not judge" allegory, but nothing could be further than the truth. What this story illustrates is that only a True Christian™ is without sin (and therefore can cast the first stone) and that Jesus expects True Christians™ to never sin again.

This story is very important to me as a pastor, since it gives me the license to freely judge and rebuke others at my will. Since I am without sin, I have the right to cast the first stone. Yet, if we are to consider this story artificial, then by what right can I lovingly rebuke heathens?

Thank you for your wise words, Reverend. We're all blessed that the Bible allows you to lovingly cast stones at heathens.

I will pray to God to make the warnings HB dished out in his anger disappear, so none of us will be reminded of any unkind things said in the heat of the moment.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Thank you for clearing that up Pastor, I was starting to get confused.

[Rev. Jim Osborne]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

I do not think that this story is artificial and introduced by liberals. I must defend the newer members Godfly and A Follower, since they both reaffirm the fact that as Christians, the AV1611 KJV is the only True Word of God(c).

It is important to remember that this story does not mean Jesus permits people to sin at will, or is against capital punishment. Jesus tells the Pharisees (Jews) that if they are without sin, then they can cast the first stone. Since they are Jews, and haven't accepted Christ as their savior, then they have sin.

We must also heed Jesus's final words..."Go and sin no more". This is a commandment to not sin again. Yet a liberal "Christian" will tell you that Christians aren't perfect and sin all the time, yet here is Jesus telling these false Christians "No, you are wrong. I expect my followers to not sin at all!"

I understand that liberal false Christians have hijacked this story and turned it into a "thou shalt not judge" allegory, but nothing could be further than the truth. What this story illustrates is that only a True Christian(tm) is without sin (and therefore can cast the first stone) and that Jesus expects True Christians(tm) to never sin again.

This story is very important to me as a pastor, since it gives me the license to freely judge and rebuke others at my will. Since I am without sin, I have the right to cast the first stone. Yet, if we are to consider this story artificial, then by what right can I lovingly rebuke heathens?

[Mistress Cookie]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Just because you hacked a True Christian's account on this website doesn't mean your words suddenly have more value. What proof do you have you are not Unsaved Trash? You interpret the Bible, while the KJV says:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You back up your cutting up of the Bible by pointing to distortions of our Lord's Holy Word. False Bibles can only obscure the True Meaning of the Bible. Please search these Godly forums for plenty explanations why picking and choosing your own Bible is evil.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" simply means non-Christians aren't allowed to punish or judge anyone, because non-Christians are all sinners. The right to punish is a right beholden to True Christians™ because only they are without sin.

I am so conflicted! I've always looked up to Brother Basher for guidance, and yet the scripture you're pointing out cannot be denied.

It does seem to me that Brother Basher has been spending more and more time alone, praying far into the night. Could sleep deprivation have made him urge us to disregard those passages? Or...should we actually disregard them?

Has someone really hacked into Basher's account? I am very upset.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Heathen Basher's disregard for this one of God's commandments

Which of God's commandments did he disregard?

[Meek and Humble]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Just because you hacked a True Christian's account on this website doesn't mean your words suddenly have more value. What proof do you have you are not Unsaved Trash? You interpret the Bible, while the KJV says:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You back up your cutting up of the Bible by pointing to distortions of our Lord's Holy Word. False Bibles can only obscure the True Meaning of the Bible. Please search these Godly forums for plenty explanations why picking and choosing your own Bible is evil.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" simply means non-Christians aren't allowed to punish or judge anyone, because non-Christians are all sinners. The right to punish is a right beholden to True Christians™ because only they are without sin.

I have never been so shocked and offended in my life! My only relief is I know that Jesus shall bless me for this unfair persecution


"Just a little note. In the same way that it is unprofessional to conclude, with no qualifications, that Mark ended his gospel at 16:8, it would be equally unprofessional to state, with no qualifications, that the adulteress story "is true." The more professional and responsible statement would be to state that, "the combined evidence of early church fathers and hundreds of the oldest Greek manuscripts suggest both that the story MAY be true, and that it was most likely NOT originally part of the Bible (missing from 90% of all Greek manuscripts prior to 900 AD)." Likewise, the more professional and responsible comment for Mark 16:8 would be, "Although Mark's gospel ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest manuscripts, the combined evidence of early church fathers and hundreds of the oldest Greek manuscripts suggests that the longer ending is 'more likely' the original ending (found in 90% of all Greek manuscripts prior to 900 AD.""

[eliot mayfield]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Everyone of you is going to calm their butts down before you all end up in the tool shed with Pastor Zeke and company!

I am warning you, such insults will not be tolerated. We do not insult Christians on this site.

Don't make me stop this thread!

[A Follower]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

This forum is protected by Jesus Christ so you can rest assured all the True Christians™ here are indeed True Christians™.

Heathen Basher's disregard for this one of God's commandments, will soon lead to him disregarding pretty much all of the Lord's rulings and judgments, it all sounds more akin a pedophile papist's rants than anything a True Christian(tm) would utter.

If this is really Heathen Basher he'd better go to a Pastor as soon as possible, before God makes his eyes rot away (relevant scripture is in my signature).

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Just because you hacked a True Christian's account on this website doesn't mean your words suddenly have more value. What proof do you have you are not Unsaved Trash?

This forum is protected by Jesus Christ so you can rest assured all the True Christians(tm) here are indeed True Christians(tm).

[A Follower]

Re: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" - not Biblic

Boy, did you just imply that I am unsaved trash?! Even King James made mistakes. After all, his Bible also contained the Apocrypha, but we all know THAT isn't really part of the Bible either.

For more info, follow the link I provided.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Jo...8Translated%29

"Thanks for your superb analysis, Michael, from which I learned immensely.

For the record, the ideological objection is not to how liberals "twist" this passage, but how the passage itself is written in such a liberal way that it renders its authenticity doubtful. It would be akin to discovering a passage that said something like this: "Jesus then said that government should take from the rich and give to the poor." Historical analysis can prove that to be non-authentic; political analysis can reach the same conclusion more efficiently and with a high degree of certitude.

Jesus did not forgive without repentance, yet the Adulteress Story claims He did. Jesus did not comment on capital punishment, yet the Adulteress Story claims He did. Jesus was not permissive about adultery, yet the Adulteress Story He was. Older people are not always wiser than younger ones, yet the Adulteress Story claims they are. And so on."

Just because you hacked a True Christian's account on this website doesn't mean your words suddenly have more value. What proof do you have you are not Unsaved Trash? You interpret the Bible, while the KJV says:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

You back up your cutting up of the Bible by pointing to distortions of our Lord's Holy Word. False Bibles can only obscure the True Meaning of the Bible. Please search these Godly forums for plenty explanations why picking and choosing your own Bible is evil.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" simply means non-Christians aren't allowed to punish or judge anyone, because non-Christians are all sinners. The right to punish is a right beholden to True Christians™ because only they are without sin.