Why Don't These Cowards....

[Mountain Man]

And he reminds the others they are not without sin.

Why do you think that is significant?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Why do you think that is significant?

To stop people who have their own sins hypocritically sitting in judgement on their fellow human beings.

Or was it a trick question.

[RumTumTugger]

Did you watch the brief comment from Ohlson in the article?

Does Jesus not love gays?

If she had depicted Jesus in bondage gear you might have a point.

As the point being made goes right over your head.

[seer]

To stop people who have their own sins hypocritically sitting in judgement on their fellow human beings.

So we all have our own sins, does that mean I can't say that racism or rape is evil? And hypocrisy usually entails the idea that one is condemning a behavior that one actually practices.

[Mountain Man]

To stop people who have their own sins hypocritically sitting in judgement on their fellow human beings.

Or was it a trick question.

Do you think it was Jesus' intent to paralyze his followers and make it impossible for them to condemn sin? Of course not. In fact, Jesus even detailed how to confront a fellow believer who sinned and demand his repentance, and if he refused, to kick him out of the church (Matthew 18). So obviously, there is some nuance in John 7 that you are (unsurprisingly) ignorant of.

[Cow Poke]

To stop people who have their own sins hypocritically sitting in judgement on their fellow human beings.

Or was it a trick question.

That's just so dumb on its face.

A) Jesus knew that there is nobody without sin besides Himself.
2) It wasn't a question. (the question was asking her where are those who condemn her -- THEN.....)
c) Ultimately, he instructed the woman he defended to stop sinning.

[rogue06]

Did you watch the brief comment from Ohlson in the article?

Does Jesus not love gays?

If she had depicted Jesus in bondage gear you might have a point.

"Maria Veronica Rossi, an MEP from Italy’s Lega Party, told The Times (U.K.) that it “represents Jesus surrounded by apostles dressed as sadomasochistic slaves.”"

Jesus is surrounded by His apostles, who are dressed as sadomasochistic slaves. That's taking their calling Him "Master" to new depths of depravity.

It isn't that He is ministering to the LGBTQ++ community, but that He is a part of that lifestyle.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"Maria Veronica Rossi, an MEP from Italy’s Lega Party, told The Times (U.K.) that it “represents Jesus surrounded by apostles dressed as sadomasochistic slaves.”"

Jesus is surrounded by His apostles, who are dressed as sadomasochistic slaves. That's taking their calling Him "Master" to new depths of depravity.

It isn't that He is ministering to the LGBTQ++ community, but that He is a part of that lifestyle.

The Lega Party is a right wing populist party and the only politicians who have [according to the article linked in the OP] criticised the piece are from Poland, Spain, and Italy - all Catholic countries. Another MP from another conservative party:

Jorge Buxadé of Spain’s Vox party. In a tweet, Buxadé accused the European Parliament of providing a platform for the “LGTBIQ+ lobby” with the complicity of leftist parties.

Ah the leftists!

And Ohlson defended her work:

There [are] a lot of pictures of Jesus with heterosexual [people],” Ohlson wrote on Twitter. “Millions, billions of paintings, famous artists. But this is just 12 pictures of Jesus loving the LGBT rights, so 12 pictures should not be so scary for them.”

Another contentious artwork in the exhibition portrayed a soldier forcefully pushing a tiny vessel loaded with migrants back into the ocean, the newspaper said.

Do you think that piece is offensive? Or is it making a comment?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's just so dumb on its face.

A) Jesus knew that there is nobody without sin besides Himself.
2) It wasn't a question. (the question was asking her where are those who condemn her -- THEN.....)
c) Ultimately, he instructed the woman he defended to stop sinning.

You are, as ever, confusing a real person behind the figures in the gospels, with a later theological construct.

NRSVUE translation:

while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. ² Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. ³ The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and, making her stand before all of them, ⁴ they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. ⁵ Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” ⁶ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. ⁷ When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” ⁸ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. ¹⁰ Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” ¹¹ She said, “No one, sir.”^[a] And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”]]<sup>[b]


[a]</sup> or Lord

^[b] The most ancient authorities lack 7.53–8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Do you think it was Jesus' intent to paralyze his followers and make it impossible for them to condemn sin? Of course not. In fact, Jesus even detailed how to confront a fellow believer who sinned and demand his repentance, and if he refused, to kick him out of the church (Matthew 18). So obviously, there is some nuance in John 7 that you are (unsurprisingly) ignorant of.

What has that to do with the pericope at John chapter eight?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So we all have our own sins, does that mean I can't say that racism or rape is evil? And hypocrisy usually entails the idea that one is condemning a behavior that one actually practices.

The generally accepted view is that this pericope of the woman taken in adultery is a later addition.

[seer]

The generally accepted view is that this pericope of the woman taken in adultery is a later addition.

Good grief woman, that had nothing to do with what I said...

So we all have our own sins, does that mean I can't say that racism or rape is evil? And hypocrisy usually entails the idea that one is condemning a behavior that one actually practices.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Good grief woman, that had nothing to do with what I said...

So we all have our own sins, does that mean I can't say that racism or rape is evil? And hypocrisy usually entails the idea that one is condemning a behavior that one actually practices.

Your comment was made in response to an exchange about the pericope in John eight.

[tabibito]

Your comment was made in response to an exchange about the pericope in John eight.

While there is good reason to believe that the pericope is a later addition, and some will speculate that it is therefore inauthentic, Seer's comment is appropriate.
The issue raised by the text itself is whether a sinner might (or will) be forgiven with provisos, not whether the pericope was originally part of John's account. Naturally enough, insofar as the text pertains to the discussion at hand, Seer's comments are a logical corollary.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

While there is good reason to believe that the pericope is a later addition, and some will speculate that it is therefore inauthentic, Seer's comment is appropriate.
The issue raised by the text itself is whether a sinner might (or will) be forgiven with provisos, not whether the pericope was originally part of John's account. Naturally enough, insofar as the text pertains to the discussion at hand, Seer's comments are a logical corollary.

There are other verses that deal with hypocrisy. Matthew 7 and its opening verses for example [echoed in part by the author of Luke].

As for sinners being forgiven it is by no means a foregone conclusion and so you must all live in hope of that