Okay, I haven't had the time to post here recently. I have one post that is still in the draft stages because I haven't had the time to finish it, and another about some stuff that happened in Las Vegas which is still in "brain-draft" status because I haven't had the time to start it. I promise (his voice echoed through the empty room) that I will get to both of those in the very near future. For now, here is a short "conversation" I had regarding a question someone had about a passage of Scripture.
"Let the one of you who is sinless be the first one to cast a stone at her. Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?
Neither do I condemn you."
Isn't Jesus implying that he has sinned at some time in his life?
Not at all, although I do understand why you could ask this question and it is a very good one. I see your thought process as being that:
A. Since only a person without sin should cast a stone
B. Since Jesus was not going to cast a stone
C. Jesus is then saying that he has sinned.
The problem with that reasoning is that Jesus doesn't say why He isn't going to cast a stone, He just says that He won't do it. Whether you believe in His deity or not, there are many logical reasons for Him not to cast a stone.
Most importantly, He wasn't the one that wanted her stoned in the first place. Of course maybe there were no rocks near Him and He simply didn't feel like walking to where there were rocks and lugging them all back to where the woman was (provided she stayed where she was) and then throwing all the rocks (because nobody without sin could throw a rock) until she was dead. Okay, that's a little silly, but do you get my point?
I believe His refusal to cast a stone is consistent with what He had to say about Himself in the second part of Mark 2:17:
"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
It certainly wouldn't seem to make a lot of sense for Him to start casting stones at the very people He claimed to have come to minister to.
Hope that helps!