ARCHIVE - You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar

[Knight]

There is this overriding theme on this forum about how Christians should deal with other Christians and/or non-Christians.

It wasn’t long ago I was in a family discussion. My brother in-law and I were witnessing to another member of the family. The discussion was rather uncomfortable at times, as discussions like that often are. The next day yet another member of my family called me on the phone to inform me that he didn’t approve of the conversation that had transpired the night before, he told me… "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ya know". He was saying in effect what many on this very forum assert in that Christians should be less judgmental, less confrontational and more tolerant of those who reject Christ.

The saying... "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ". Is most likely true. I think you actually can catch more flies by pouring out a container of honey onto your back patio than you can by leaving a jar of vinegar or your back porch.

So maybe my friendly relative was right! Maybe I should witness to people using his mantra … "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ".

Except……

Flies are pests that you want to die.

When you catch flies with honey you don’t wash them off and set them free, you leave them in the honey like you do with fly paper in an effort to kill them so they will no longer land on your kitchen table or try to eat your peanut butter and jelly sandwich or bother you when you are napping.

I don’t want my friends and family to die like flies in honey, I want them to live! Live forever!

Why would I want my friends and family to get STUCK in the honey and then die in their sin?

Did Jesus ever say anything like…… "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".?

Jesus said… "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men."Salt is nothing like sugar (or honey for that matter.) Salt, is much more like vinegar! Jesus didn’t say "You are the sugar (or the honey) of the earth…." He made a point to say "salt"!

Jesus called some people "Vipers" , He called others "swine" He even made His own whip and chased people with it! Are those things more like honey, or more like vinegar?

Some might bring up (in opposition to what I am saying) when Jesus said "But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you"So how can we be salt yet love our enemies? Well maybe the answer lies in how we perceive "love". Maybe its not loving to allow your family and friends to die in honey. The Bible says… ‘You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him."Wow, did you get that? It would be hateful to NOT rebuke your sinning neighbor!

Jesus said "If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him." It doesn’t get anymore clear than that does it? Can you really rebuke someone with honey? Jesus did some REAL salty rebuking in Matthew 11:20 - no honey there!

The Bible says… Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. - 1 Timothy 5:20Is it really possible to rebuke in a nice way (with honey so to speak) so that others may fear???

Of course there is always room for gentle consultation when there is ample time or when the sin in question is not of a serious nature. But for the most part I would assert that honey, more often than not, keeps people "stuck" in their sin and is hateful. Harsh rebuke is salty and therefore much more Christ-like and loving.

You can indeed kill more pests with honey but if you don’t want to allow your friends and family to get stuck and die you might want to try salt!

[kiwimac]

Knight,

Do you hear the far off sounds of bells, pealing out "DUNG, DUNG, DUNG"

Kiwimac

[Kate]

INMHO, I think we should witness with our deeds first. I remember when I was just saved and was a zealous babe in Christ, I couldn't shut up. Needless to say, no one wanted to listen, to them I "cought religion". It took years of trying and struggling to live according to what I preached, I now have a theory that actions are louder than words, and we should witness with the way we live, I think it was Ghundi who said "My life is my mission". We can preach to people who come to listen to the preaching vilunteraly, but not do the "intervention" style technique, especially in the family gatherings. Let your family see God in you, you can't fail. ONLY MY OPINION.

[Knight]

Kate thank you for responding!

Kate you say...INMHO, I think we should witness with our deeds first. I remember when I was just saved and was a zealous babe in Christ, I couldn't shut up. Needless to say, no one wanted to listen, to them I "cought religion".What biblical case can you make for your statement? I am just curious because I can't seem to remember God telling us to worry if people would listen or not.

You continue...I think it was Ghundi who said "My life is my mission". We can preach to people who come to listen to the preaching vilunteraly, but not do the "intervention" style technique, especially in the family gatherings. Let your family see God in you, you can't fail. ONLY MY OPINION.Did you mean Ghandi? He wasn't a Christian.

I do agree we should be a light and be a living testimony but I also think we need to be more salty!

[Yxboom]

Im sure quoting Ghandi isn't going to get much points in this Forum. Besides why do those who claim not to judge, judge more harshly than those who claim we should. Reminds me of King David after killing Uriah and sleeping with Bathsheba screamed for "Godly JUSTICE and VENGENCE" on the man who unrightly took anothers lamb.
I wonder how many people judge and complain if those men who went into the WTC buildings insisting that they should evacuate may have been harsh and abrupt about getting out. Some may have been told things they didn't like and had to actually stop what they were doing.
How much greater is Hell than a burning building yet if you are not PC and even hurt someone's ego you are the enemy and not the watchman how should be recieved. Seems incompetent. Just imagine the Fireman running out of the WTC building yet saying nothing expecting everyone to follow, or a night watchmen that rather than ring the Town Bell jumped off his post and evacuated expecting everyone to do the same. What good is an alarm that doesn't ring? Or for this Threads sake, a picture of a jar of honey is the closest thing to honey as most flies get when it comes to personal evangelism. ;)

[Jaltus]

Ephesians 4:11

11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers,

I keep looking for "couch-potatoes and internet junkies" but it is not even in any manuscripts.

Joking aside, I do believe that we are to witness, but I do think that not all are called to be evangelists. Some are called to witness by living their lives but not being afraid to share when the time is right.

However, all are called to be ready to answer the call, to make disciples.

[Yxboom]

Jaltus.....ditto!

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. ;)

[Knight]

Jaltus you write...Joking aside, I do believe that we are to witness, but I do think that not all are called to be evangelists. Some are called to witness by living their lives but not being afraid to share when the time is right.I agree for the most part, but I would say the time is almost always right, wouldn't you?Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. - 2Timothy 4:2

[Projill]

Originally posted by Knight
Kate thank you for responding!

Kate you say...Did you mean Ghandi? He wasn't a Christian.

I do agree we should be a light and be a living testimony but I also think we need to be more salty!

Okay, to the best of my knowledge and memory, it's spelled "Gandhi" not "Ghandi". I'm open to being wrong, but that's the only way, apart from this board, that I've ever seen it spelled.

[Amazing_Grace]

I agree with Jaltus. I think that everyone is called to do different things. Some have an exceptional gift to witness and evangelise, some have the gift of teaching, some simply prove Christ's Love through the lives that they lead. It doesn't mean you are less Christian because you don't do all of these things.

I am able to witness to those who have questions, but don't believe I should openly evangelise just yet. I do not have the knowledge to do so. I would probably do more harm than good. But I can serve God by living a good example. One day He may call me to witness more often, and I will answer that call.

Now, if one were called to witness, etc., and ignored that call, then I think there would be a problem.

[Yxboom]

Projill majoring in the minors again are we???

[Goose]

I don't know much about what Jesus did before his ministry, but I do know a lot of what he said.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Projill


Okay, to the best of my knowledge and memory, it's spelled "Gandhi" not "Ghandi". I'm open to being wrong, but that's the only way, apart from this board, that I've ever seen it spelled. You very well could be right!

[Knight]

Amazing Grace writes… I agree with Jaltus. I think that everyone is called to do different things. Some have an exceptional gift to witness and evangelise, some have the gift of teaching, some simply prove Christ's Love through the lives that they lead. It doesn't mean you are less Christian because you don't do all of these things.I agree 100% But that isn’t really my point.

You continue… One day He may call me to witness more often, and I will answer that call. OK, fine… but when, and if that day comes will you use the mantra "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". Or will you be willing to be a little salty!

[Knight]

Originally posted by goose
I don't know much about what Jesus did before his ministry, but I do know a lot of what he said. And your point was???? :cool:

[Goose]

Knight:

Originally posted by Knight
And your point was???? :cool:

I'm not good a debating and I don't know much about where Jesus worked, what he dressed like or what he did when he was a youngster, but I do know about the effects of his teaching and how he talked and interacted with people. His teaching/rebuking/offensing/loving was a lot how he walked. He fulfilled the law and didn't abolish it.

I find that people debate (not necessarily THIS debate) so much over this verse and that verse and get rapped up in the law they forget where the law came from and sometimes even what they were arguing about! Blind leading the blind I tell you. The essence, central focus of ALL the law (God), and only through that focus can you see where the point of the law comes in. Like a ray in geometry. You have a central point and from that, you can draw another point and create a ray(a line). Like solar rays from the sun. Let's say the Ten Commandments are this point outside of the focus point, as an example.

God - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ten Commandments

*-------------------------------------*--->


Even though they are not at the same point, they are still Godly, just one is in heaven and the other is on "earth", manifested. Like Jesus I guess. But upon that ray/line, closer to God, you could draw another perfectly valid Godly 'point', descended from heaven let's say, as another law smack dab between those two. Let's say this is the two commandments that Jesus gave us, above the Ten Commandments. That is:
Mark 12:30-31 - "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

God(A)- Two Commandments(B) - Ten Commandments(C)

*----------------*--------------------*--->


There. We can now validate the essence/focus (A) by the two points B and C. not that God needs to be "approved" by us, but WE need to check ourselves. With these rays, you can deduce just about anything, like the your validity on a point or a point of what Jesus and/or his followers are saying in the Bible. There's plenty of commands and laws to practically make a whole circle around our focus, God. Like the Bible itself. Just look at the authors of the books, over how many years, from how many lands, languages, walks of life? ALL HAVING THE SAME FOCUS! How can christians disagree so much? I would think that our differences should be for diversity sake, not on doctrine. I could go on forever I guess about this. What do YOU ALL think of this? I'm a new believer with somewhat abstract ideas I think. I want to base myself as a stone though, more concrete. TELL ME if you see anything wrong with the way I might be thinking or something...I want to be rebuked if I need it. I want the truth. Thanks for taking the time to read this far. Peace.

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by Jaltus

I keep looking for "couch-potatoes and internet junkies" but it is not even in any manuscripts.



Don't worry that version is coming out soon.:)

It is thine old king james version that doth hold us backeth.;)

[Yxboom]

I do agree we should be a light and be a living testimony but I also think we need to be more salty!

I know a few wounds that could use some. ;)

[Kate]

Jaltus, you are right. Everyone is called according to His time and purpose.

Knight, just because I crinch when a Christian opens his mouth and starts saying you know you are a sinner and you are going to hell at a family party, doesn't mean God didn't call you to do so. I stand corrected... :) If I did it at my family gathering, that would be my last invite... :D But it doesn't mean your family is the same. I think I projected. My apology.

I know my misison and I will assume that others know theirs. I am glad I learned that. Thank you all.

[Jaltus]

I Corinthians 1:17-24

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel-- not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

It is the cross which is offensive, not the one on it. It is the message that should offend, not the one conveying it.

[Kate]

It is the message that should offend

Whoever came up with the name "Good News"? :D:D

[Knight]

Kate you say...Knight, just because I crinch when a Christian opens his mouth and starts saying you know you are a sinner and you are going to hell at a family partyI actually never said that, I said the conversation was "uncomfortable".

[Kate]

It was just a metaphor for the "message". You never specified what you said. But I see you are very sensitive, you know everyone else is too, so we must take that under consideration. :):)

[beanieboy]

Jesus called some people "Vipers" , He called others "swine" He even made His own whip and chased people with it! Are those things more like honey, or more like vinegar?
______________________________________
I am amazed how often this "vipers" thing comes up.
I'm not a christian, and even I know who he was addressing. And who was that? The "sinners"? The taxcollectors? The harlots?
NOooooooooooooooo. It was the people of the church, who had their noses up in the air, and thought they were better than everyone else. How many times does this have to be pointed out, exactly? Or do those who think they have license to cast condemnation on others because they are christian going to just continue to ignore that?

And let's see. Jesus makes a whip and drives people out of the temple. Was Jesus driving out the harlots? The taxcollectors? The sinners? Noooooooooooooooooo. He was driving out people who were selling sacreliging THE TEMPLE ITSELF. Those (help me - you know it ) WITHIN THE CHURCH. Yeah, there you go.

(eye rolling). I can't believe that I have to point that out to YOU.
Honestly, I think that misusing such verses is spreading falsehood, and to do it when you know better, and it has been pointed out repeatedly, makes you a liar.

Do I condemn you for it? No. You condemn yourself. It will make people think you aren't to be believed. That's its own consequence.

[beanieboy]

It doesn't surprise me that the flies/honey/vinegar analogy is taken literally, and in so, misses the point, much as I see many fundamentalists missing the point of the Bible by taking everything literaly.

Jesus wasn't a door. He doesn't say he was LIKE a door. He says, Behold, I am a door. But that doesn't make him a door.

The saying, "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" means that you can attract more people with kind words than with harsh ones.

I can already here the reactionary extreme. "Yes, but I should nicely ask someone to get out of the street if a car is careening down the road." Well, duh. It's not a black/white issue. Point out a fault, but you better be doing some self reflection first, or else you will be doing no one any good. On another thread someone said, "This is your last chance! Repent or you will spend eternity in hell!" Projill laughed. I rolled my eyes. It did no one any good.

I am drawn to people that seem calm, genuinely giving, humble, kind, self reflective, gentle, and have integrity. When I see someone telling me that it is my "last chance," i think "my last chance with YOU, but I don't need your forgiveness. This is between me and God. Now go away.

There is a time for gentle help, a time for intervention, a time for strong words, and a time to mind your own business.

[Goose]

beanieboy,

You made a lot of points. Just to whom were you addressing your post to? Sounds like you did a lot of judging yourself. Did you judge righteously? Have you taken the splinter out of your own eye before ours?

Your posts were the kind of posts that people write to make themselves feel better about being a non-christian sinner and thinking your going to heaven because you've exposed us as Pharisees. Please, dont tell anyone! Oh wait, am I a hypocrite? I do remember repenting and being forgiven and not doing sinful things anymore and accepting Grace. Hmm, I've cast the beam out of my eye...Sounds pretty close to Matthew 7. You might want to read that.

Just because Jesus died to save the world, doesn't mean that he will save you if you DENY Him. Denying that you believe in Him in public is a good example, like you just made. Can you get any worse? Why would you say your a non-christian in public? IN A CHRISTIAN PEOPLE'S CHAT FORUM?!?!? You probably hate the notion of taking up your own cross and walking like Jesus did, admitting that you CAN be fixed. In your posts, you seem to hate the cross, the burden of your sins that you need to place at Jesus' feet and confession of those sins so that you can be made good. You're trying to make yourself righteous by your knowhow, not by God's.

Mat 10:32-33 "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."

Mar 10:21 "Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me."

These aren't my words, but the Lord's. Do you feel like you don't need to repent? Are you the type of person that says, "Forgive me Father for the sin I'm about to commit" Are you a repeat offender? I have felt like this before I opened my heart to Him. You CAN have a remmission of sins. I noticed that I was mad at myself because I couldn't be perfect on my own and that it would take TIME because I was so much a sinner. but I learned about the GRACE of God, how if I try and do the things he commands me, I'll be alright.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by goose
beanieboy,

You made a lot of points. Just to whom were you addressing your post to? Sounds like you did a lot of judging yourself. Did you judge righteously? Have you taken the splinter out of your own eye before ours?


The thread was started by Knight, but it is a quote that the idol Enyart likes to say. I was pointing out that a christian was claiming the right to judge others harshly, based on the fact that Jesus called "some people" vipers. He wasn't calling the sinners vipers. He was calling the religious people vipers. And to just refer to "some people" without specifying that Jesus was addressing those WITHIN the church, to justify judging others harshly, is spreading falsehood.

But I've said this before, and it falls on deaf ears. Pearls before swine, I think is what Christ called it. Hardened hearts. Some people refuse to see the truth, even when they claim to worship someone who is the Truth, the Light , and the Way.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by goose
beanieboy,

Just because Jesus died to save the world, doesn't mean that he will save you if you DENY Him. Denying that you believe in Him in public is a good example, like you just made. Can you get any worse? Why would you say your a non-christian in public? IN A CHRISTIAN PEOPLE'S CHAT FORUM?!?!? You probably hate the notion of taking up your own cross and walking like Jesus did, admitting that you CAN be fixed. In your posts, you seem to hate the cross, the burden of your sins that you need to place at Jesus' feet and confession of those sins so that you can be made good. You're trying to make yourself righteous by your knowhow, not by God's.


In the words of Depeche Mode, "Everybody's waiting for the Judgement Day, so they can say, 'Told you so.' "

I am a non-Christian. I point it out because I find it weird that when the bible is quoted out of context, I can point it out, yet the follower seems to miss the point. Why would I point that out in a (gasp) christian forum? Might I ask why you would even question me being here? Or are you here just to preach to the choir?

[Knight]

beanie says...The thread was started by Knight, but it is a quote that the idol Enyart likes to say. I was pointing out that a christian was claiming the right to judge others harshly, based on the fact that Jesus called "some people" vipers. He wasn't calling the sinners vipers. He was calling the religious people vipers. And to just refer to "some people" without specifying that Jesus was addressing those WITHIN the church, to justify judging others harshly, is spreading falsehood.Are you claiming that the Pharisees and the Sadducees would be considered part of "the Church"??

The Sadducees didn't even believe in a after life, angels or a spiritual life in general. John the Bapist called them "vipers" and Jesus called them “hypocrites” and “a wicked and adulterous generation” (Matt. 16:1-4; 22:23).

And you are claiming the Pharisees and the Sadducees are part of Christ's church???

So just who is spreading the falsehood?

[Knight]

Just a side note to keep things on track.... the point is that Jesus often did not use a "honey" type approach when evangelizing to others, He often (not always - but often) used what we might call a "vinegar" type approach when evangelizing regardless of who the audience was.

[Goose]

Beanie,

At it's heart, I think Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. Did you not read my first post on this page? It's on page 2 by my web browser....

[Atheist_Divine]

Of course Christianity is a religion.
Religion = worship of a god. Therefore Christianity is a religion. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[Luther]

"Religion" just doesn't fit in with our neat, "Christian" reproduction of sixties spirituality. Has anyone seen my blue-tinted sunglasses, bell bottoms, LSD, or my guitar?

I'm partial to being part of the Christian religion.

Personally, I think we need to evangelize as people of God: ie with integrity, truth, and enthusiasm for the GOSPEL.

I believe we should NOT evangelize by: smiling a whole lot more than the average person, reproducing mediocre anti-social sub-cultures for the saking of being relevant, pretending we like someone. That is all a bunch of b.s. and anyone can see through it. Anyone who is attracted to it is also full of a certain substance known as dung.

Luther

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
There is this overriding theme on this forum about how Christians should deal with other Christians and/or non-Christians.

It wasn’t long ago I was in a family discussion. My brother in-law and I were witnessing to another member of the family. The discussion was rather uncomfortable at times, as discussions like that often are. The next day yet another member of my family called me on the phone to inform me that he didn’t approve of the conversation that had transpired the night before, he told me… "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ya know". He was saying in effect what many on this very forum assert in that Christians should be less judgmental, less confrontational and more tolerant of those who reject Christ.

The saying... "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ". Is most likely true. I think you actually can catch more flies by pouring out a container of honey onto your back patio than you can by leaving a jar of vinegar or your back porch.

So maybe my friendly relative was right! Maybe I should witness to people using his mantra … "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar ".

Except……

Flies are pests that you want to die.

When you catch flies with honey you don’t wash them off and set them free, you leave them in the honey like you do with fly paper in an effort to kill them so they will no longer land on your kitchen table or try to eat your peanut butter and jelly sandwich or bother you when you are napping.

I don’t want my friends and family to die like flies in honey, I want them to live! Live forever!

Why would I want my friends and family to get STUCK in the honey and then die in their sin?

Did Jesus ever say anything like…… "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".?

Jesus said…Is it really possible to rebuke in a nice way (with honey so to speak) so that others may fear???

Of course there is always room for gentle consultation when there is ample time or when the sin in question is not of a serious nature. But for the most part I would assert that honey, more often than not, keeps people "stuck" in their sin and is hateful. Harsh rebuke is salty and therefore much more Christ-like and loving.

You can indeed kill more pests with honey but if you don’t want to allow your friends and family to get stuck and die you might want to try salt! You make many statements here ND, and I think their is a misunderstanding in how you witness. The purpose of "witnessing" is to bring people TO God. If you are not achieving that, then you are not effectively witnessing.

They were NOT saying be more tolerant of those who reject Christ, but show them the love of Christ. Why in the world, would I choose to do the will of an angry, hateful, threatening God? I wouldn't and neither did your family member, nor the one who called you up.

If all you can do in witnessing is to tell them of what will happen if they DON'T, then you are getting false converts out of fear, and not those who truely love and repent to God.

20+ years ago, God, for the second time in my life, came to me and spoke to me. I knew his message, and I rejected it because I could not "love" him. The same quotes and same threats had been used on me to convert, and I did, but I never loved Him. I feared, but didn't feel one bit of love for Him. The reason was, to me, he was not a God of love, but a God of terror. I found more in the bible that made HIM look evil than I did to show that Satan was the evil one.

You see, I was one of those who went to church every week, was a member of the Youth Services, was a participant in all the programs for all the holidays. I was baptized in His name, in the trinity. But I didn't LOVE God. I was just like 99% of those in here, and in the world who don't actually read the entire bible, but hear only 5-10 disjointed verses placed together to get a message, and almost everytime that message was one of fear. Do it or ELSE!

So when, 20+ years ago, as a young adult, I started reading the bible myself, and found out that the bible just did NOT say what I had been taught. So I rejected the god of liars, for that is how I thought of the church, and of Him. I had rejected him for 5 years before He personally protected me from an attack on my sanity, and my soul, by a minion of His nemesis.

At that time, he wanted me to do something. I buried it deep, along with most of the terrors visited on me that day, and ignored Him. I passed on what He did for me, and what I knew he wanted me to say, but I avoided the bible because that was written about the same kind of god that you see. A god of anger, deceit, hate, revenge, and more.

20+ years of my life wasted because I had been taught WRONG about the bible and about God.

A little over a year ago, I had my 6th experiance with God. I call it an experiance because these are what many would have called "miracles", but many don't accept the idea of miracles, so I will use a term that is acceptable to everyone.

I have told everyone what that experiance was, and how it transformed me. I finally realized I wasn't rejecting God, I was rejecting the lies I had been taught about Him. I was rejecting the church doctrines and their need to be the only way to God. Each church likes to think their denomination has the only access to God. And while some may not say that, they all say it with their eyes by mentioning "The preist of this church comes to hear me preach". I have heard that so many times it sickens me. I come to hear/feel God.

You asked if Jesus would ever say "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar." Yes, and he did. He did it with the parable of the Prodigle son, and the parable of the one lost sheep. God rejoices over the return of one lost sheep more than he does over all the sheep that were never lost.

You call flies pests, and to you, atheists are pests. I think that speaks volumes about your depth of faith. Do you remember what Jesus said about faith moving mountains? When you run from an atheist, he/she has beaten you. Your faith is worthless since you did not allow God/Jesus to work through you and to bring this person to him.

With God, all things are possible. Why do you reject this? Jesus said it, and you say you stand for what Jesus said. If you are full of the Holy Spirit, satan/evil can not touch you, but you can touch the lives of millions. Give it a chance to work in you. He WANTS to work through you, if you will let Him. Do you HONESTLY not believe this?

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Luther
"Religion" just doesn't fit in with our neat, "Christian" reproduction of sixties spirituality. Has anyone seen my blue-tinted sunglasses, bell bottoms, LSD, or my guitar?

I'm partial to being part of the Christian religion.

Personally, I think we need to evangelize as people of God: ie with integrity, truth, and enthusiasm for the GOSPEL.

I believe we should NOT evangelize by: smiling a whole lot more than the average person, reproducing mediocre anti-social sub-cultures for the saking of being relevant, pretending we like someone. That is all a bunch of b.s. and anyone can see through it. Anyone who is attracted to it is also full of a certain substance known as dung.

Luther You are right Luthor. We shouldn't lie about liking someone. We should, being TRUE christians, really LOVE that person. If you can't, then are you REALLY full of the Holy Spirit? And if not, what are you evangelizing? Words mean nothing if the Spirit isn't there. And if you can not truly love as Jesus did, maybe it isn't outside we should be looking for the problem, but inside. Don't do what I did. You may not have the 20 years he gave me to wisen up.

[Goose]

[i]
I believe we should NOT evangelize by: smiling a whole lot more than the average person, reproducing mediocre anti-social sub-cultures for the saking of being relevant, pretending we like someone. That is all a bunch of b.s. and anyone can see through it. Anyone who is attracted to it is also full of a certain substance known as dung.

Luther [/B]

I agree. But what is a definition if the listener interprets it differently then it's intent? When most people say religion, I bet most people think of the people you just described. Besides, I was describing the heart, not it's outward work. I was born in the 80's by the way....

[Goose]

Originally posted by Atheist_Divine
Of course Christianity is a religion.
Religion = worship of a god. Therefore Christianity is a religion. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

To you that's all it is. Just a simple equation. And a whole man has no need of a physician.

[Goose]

Knight,

I've had similar experiences with my WHOLE family. My brother and I are the only ones who try to have a strong relationship with God.
My parents say that since they grew up going to a catholic school, they don't need what we do(church, bible, etc.). Yet my dad always comes to us with questions. It's hard to describe heavenly things. Like in John, where Jesus was talking about the re-birth to Nicodemus.

Goose

[Luther]

I agree. But what is a definition if the listener interprets it differently then it's intent? When most people say religion, I bet most people think of the people you just described. Besides, I was describing the heart, not it's outward work. I was born in the 80's by the way....
You don't have to be from the 60's to have the religion of a beat-nick (sp?). Those hippies are now the ones in the pulpits and perpetuating the same nonsense.

When I think of "Not a religion, it's a relationship", I think of people trying really hard to be spiritual while reading the Left Behind series. These individuals live a mediocre life, careful not to offend anyone, living a sanitized, lysol-filled life. These people reject creedal statements, promote "no creed but Christ" while they're watching Touched by an Angel and all sorts of other sappy nonsense that evangelicals use as an opiate. To proclaim relationship over creed tends to lose theological significance and reduces salvation to a buddy buddy relationship. It lacks any substance, and is what is most popular today. I am what people would describe as "confessional". I like creeds, I like hymns, I like church history and believe in the communion of saints. This may all sound incredibly random, it's just you happened to step on a pet peeve of mine.

Luther

[Kate]

HSG, I loved your posts!

[Goose]

Luther:

Originally posted by Luther

You don't have to be from the 60's to have the religion of a beat-nick (sp?). Those hippies are now the ones in the pulpits and perpetuating the same nonsense.

When I think of "Not a religion, it's a relationship", I think of people trying really hard to be spiritual while reading the Left Behind series. These individuals live a mediocre life, careful not to offend anyone, living a sanitized, lysol-filled life. These people reject creedal statements, promote "no creed but Christ" while they're watching Touched by an Angel and all sorts of other sappy nonsense that evangelicals use as an opiate. To proclaim relationship over creed tends to lose theological significance and reduces salvation to a buddy buddy relationship. It lacks any substance, and is what is most popular today. I am what people would describe as "confessional". I like creeds, I like hymns, I like church history and believe in the communion of saints. This may all sound incredibly random, it's just you happened to step on a pet peeve of mine.

Luther

thank you for the laughs. :) I agree. I'm not one of those people. I've never even read the Left Behind Series (not that reading them are bad!). I said the "heart". I was trying to focus on the spring of our heart, not the fruits that it waters. In John 3, with the story of Nicodemus, Jesus talked about trying to explain how if someone didn't understand you talking about the things of this world, how much harder it would be to explain heavenly things. I'm trying to say that they are missing something, that which is in the heart. I'm finding this to be difficult, even around my elder brothers and sisters in Christ it seems.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Knight
beanie says...Are you claiming that the Pharisees and the Sadducees would be considered part of "the Church"??

The Sadducees didn't even believe in a after life, angels or a spiritual life in general. John the Bapist called them "vipers" and Jesus called them “hypocrites” and “a wicked and adulterous generation” (Matt. 16:1-4; 22:23).

And you are claiming the Pharisees and the Sadducees are part of Christ's church???

So just who is spreading the falsehood?

Are you claiming these weren't the religious leaders of the time?

Were they part of "Christ's Church?" No. But there were most certainly part of the preChrist Church. They quoted from Scripture.

Are you going to say that, therefore, none of this applies to those in Christ's Church today? That Jesus would not rebuke those who made a spectacle of their holiness, of how often they prayed, of how they exalted themselves for being better than a sinner?

Think I struck a nerve.

Again, I say that you are purposefully spreading falsehood. It's own consequence.

[beanieboy]

Knight - can you explain specifically what happened? I think it is difficult to discuss an unspecified situation and how it vaguely becomes uncomfortable, and be able to comment on it.

I know the focus is on judging (sigh) again and gentleness vs. harsh rebuke, but it would be more helpful to have your example, and then apply it, rather than the moronic extremist examples that don't move the debate forward.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Yxboom
Im sure quoting Ghandi isn't going to get much points in this Forum. Besides why do those who claim not to judge, judge more harshly than those who claim we should. Reminds me of King David after killing Uriah and sleeping with Bathsheba screamed for "Godly JUSTICE and VENGENCE" on the man who unrightly took anothers lamb.
I wonder how many people judge and complain if those men who went into the WTC buildings insisting that they should evacuate may have been harsh and abrupt about getting out. Some may have been told things they didn't like and had to actually stop what they were doing.
How much greater is Hell than a burning building yet if you are not PC and even hurt someone's ego you are the enemy and not the watchman how should be recieved. Seems incompetent. Just imagine the Fireman running out of the WTC building yet saying nothing expecting everyone to follow, or a night watchmen that rather than ring the Town Bell jumped off his post and evacuated expecting everyone to do the same. What good is an alarm that doesn't ring? Or for this Threads sake, a picture of a jar of honey is the closest thing to honey as most flies get when it comes to personal evangelism. ;)

If you were to walk in on your 5 year old playing doctor with the neighbor girl, would you say, YOUUUUUUU SINNNNNER! YOU PERVERT, WITH A LUSTFUL HEART! YOU ARE GOING TO HELL FOR THIS DISGUSTING THING THAT YOU ARE DOING, UNLESS YOU REPENT RIGHT NOW!

Oh, wait. Probably not. Because that would be extreeeeeeeeemist. See how that works. There is gentle rebuke. And there is harsh rebuke. And sometimes, harsh rebuke results in more harm than good.

Here's a book of Common Sense. Check it out.

[Goose]

Originally posted by beanieboy


Are you claiming these weren't the religious leaders of the time?

Were they part of "Christ's Church?" No. But there were most certainly part of the preChrist Church. They quoted from Scripture.

Are you going to say that, therefore, none of this applies to those in Christ's Church today? That Jesus would not rebuke those who made a spectacle of their holiness, of how often they prayed, of how they exalted themselves for being better than a sinner?

Think I struck a nerve.

Again, I say that you are purposefully spreading falsehood. It's own consequence.

The devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness while he was filled with the Holy Spirit. The devil quoted scripture!

Luke 4:9-13 "And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:" Devil quotes scripture here: "For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season."

What you say is nothing new.

What you say is not a blow to christianity.

What you say applies to the world in which God lived in before there were christians who could openly rebuke these things.

There was evil like there is today. Satan was a religeous leader and still is. People worship him. That doesn't mean he's a member with God just because of human perception, like the perception the faithless had of the Pharisees. The devil loves people who worship themselves. Some of these people even go to church and I'm sure even some are on the pulpit! There are "christians" out there that Jesus warns us of. Worse will be done to these people in the end days then what was done to Sodom.

Who's making a spectacle of their holiness here? You obviously don't give Jesus the credit. Who do you give credit to? I give credit of my cleansing to Christ. I boast NOT of myself but of Him who cleansed me.

I think I struck a nerve. Particularly the brain part.

Pro 24:24-27 "He that saith unto the wicked, Thou [art] righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him: But to them that rebuke [him] shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them."

[Knight]

Goose writes...Knight,

I've had similar experiences with my WHOLE family. My brother and I are the only ones who try to have a strong relationship with God. My parents say that since they grew up going to a catholic school, they don't need what we do(church, bible, etc.). Yet my dad always comes to us with questions. It's hard to describe heavenly things. Like in John, where Jesus was talking about the re-birth to Nicodemus.

GooseI hear ya goose! What many people know (and some do not) is that Jesus did not come here preaching "unity". He came preaching truth. And sometimes the truth divides!Luke 12:51 “Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52 “For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 “Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

[Knight]

beanie says...Are you claiming these weren't the religious leaders of the time?

Were they part of "Christ's Church?" No. But there were most certainly part of the preChrist Church. They quoted from Scripture.Beanie almost every person on the face of the earth in Jesus time was "religious", and some of them were "leaders" but only a TINY fraction would have been considered a part of the "Church".

Quoting scripture hardly qualifies one as part of the church, you should know that as even you and many other non-christians on thin board quote scripture.

[Knight]

beanie says...Oh, wait. Probably not. Because that would be extreeeeeeeeemist. See how that works. There is gentle rebuke. And there is harsh rebuke. And sometimes, harsh rebuke results in more harm than good.Beanie I think you are missing the point.

Let me see if I can get you back on track....

I think there are times for both harsh rebuke and gentle rebuke or even just plain friendship and fellowship.

But the point is that many Christians in today's world think ANY type of rebuke (harsh or gentle) is un-Christian, which is where I disagree.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Knight
beanie says...Beanie almost every person on the face of the earth in Jesus time was "religious", and some of them were "leaders" but only a TINY fraction would have been considered a part of the "Church".

Quoting scripture hardly qualifies one as part of the church, you should know that as even you and many other non-christians on thin board quote scripture.

The devil quotes scripture in the Gospel, but I wasn't saying that the devil was part of the Church.

Maybe I misunderstand.

My understanding is that the Pharissees and Sagusees (which I mispelled terribly) were the ones teaching in the synagogues. They had a lot of power, and Jesus was not only challenging this power, but exposing them for projecting outwardly that they were holy, while being rotten inside. They would roam the streets, beating their backs publicly, saying, "Search me, Oh, God" because they wanted people to see them as holy, and many did. And Jesus challenged this "falsehood." They claimed to preach God, yet because they were self serving, ended up leading people farther away from God.
The biggest area of contention, however, was that in exposing them as "blind fools," he challenged their authority, and in so, challenged their power. If they were exposed for what they were, no one would follow them or listen to them. And this is the biggest issue they had with Jesus. He was a threat to their power.

Am I wrong in this?

And secondly, you still haven't answered me. Jesus was talking to religious leaders, even if they were a TINY segment of the church. He wasn't talking to people who were seeking him. He wasn't saying, "Hey, Zacheus, you viper's brood! Hey, Mary Magdelan, you dog! You swine!" He was talking to people who considered themself better than others in the eyes of God. That was my point. To then KNOW that, but then say, "well, then I can go call a sinner a viper."
In the passage where Jesus was harsh with the Pharissees, he said that they made their converts twice as prepared for hell as they were themselves. Isn't, in KNOWINGLY misusing a passage, and equating it to permission to calling people outside the church vipers, at it's best, irresponsible, and at it worst, just bold face lying?

[Knight]

Beanie states...And secondly, you still haven't answered me. Jesus was talking to religious leaders, even if they were a TINY segment of the church.Ahhhhh!!! There you go again, and you were getting so close! The Pharisees and the Sadducees were not part of what we would call "the church"! The Pharisees and the Sadducees might have considered themselves part of their own church but they were not part of "the church" if we are to take the term "the church" to mean the followers of Jesus.

Didn't you read where I told you the Sadducees did not believe in a afterlife, angels or spiritual things in general?

Jesus was harsh with people outside His group of followers at times AND inside His group of followers at times! Remember what He said to Peter...But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” - Matthew 16:23

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Knight
beanie says...Beanie I think you are missing the point.

Let me see if I can get you back on track....

I think there are times for both harsh rebuke and gentle rebuke or even just plain friendship and fellowship.

But the point is that many Christians in today's world think ANY type of rebuke (harsh or gentle) is un-Christian, which is where I disagree.

As I said, there is time for harsh rebuke, gentle rebuke, etc. I agree with you. It's just that on TOL it works like this:

A: One should not always use harsh rebuke. Sometimes it does more harm than good.
B: Oh, like when someone is in a burning building? You should just ask them to gently leave? Or maybe just let the building burn because you don't want to wake them?
A: Uh, no. That's extremist. I said "always." Sometimes it is inappropriate, such as, when a child does something that is relatively innocent, like playing doctor.
B: So we should NEVER use harsh rebuke?
A: AHHHHHHH! I said we should not ALWAYS use rebuke. It's not an always or never issue.

It's really frustrating.

Again, it is easier to apply one's belief to a specific situation, and not leave room for extremist burning building examples. Would you mind telling us what happened at the family gathering, what you said, what they said, etc., so that we can understand what we are talking about?

I don't know if you were in a screaming match over the Trinity during a Christmas Eve dinner, and telling your relative that they were going to burn in hell, while their kids sat there with tears streaming down their face, or if you were just confronting someone about their drinking problem, and how it is affecting the family. I have no reference except a vague situation where there was "uncomfortableness." Since you brought up your situation, would you mind being specific of what happened, so that we can use it as an example, and then assess the situation? And please, let's use it as an example, and not as an excuse to berate Knight.
For all I know, we may be in total agreement. Because I am unsure of the reference, I can't be sure.

Personally, I can't think of anyone who thinks they should never rebuke someone, christian or non. Again, I can't comment on the vagueness of "christians who never use harsh rebuke" without given specific examples of modern day life.

However, I bet there are more people in churches that say, "You are welcome here, because we are all part of God's family," than churches that make the world seem like the enemy, and treat them as such, saying, "You're going to hellll!" The latter brings back a memory of being 7 or 8, when my neighbors seemed to delight in telling me that, because I was Protestant, and they were Catholic. It begins by putting the other person on the defense. And that was never Christ's approach.

[beanieboy]

Is that true, Knight? Can anyone confirm/deny this? This is not what I was taught.

Even if this were true, can we then say that it is okay to randomly call people vipers? That Jesus should have called sinners names in order to bring them to him? That is all I am saying.

If you are a hustler, people are going to be calling you names already, like skank and ho. Do you honestly think calling someone a slut, and then telling them that God can save them, is going to make them say, "Hey, I want to follow your religion?" I can tell you from experience that I was called faggot in high school by people that thought it was fun to pick on those who were weaker. Being called a faggot by a christian makes me view them exactly the same - as someone who enjoys being cruel and mean to other people.

[beanieboy]

.

[Knight]

Beanie says...As I said, there is time for harsh rebuke, gentle rebuke, etc. I agree with you. It's just that on TOL it works like this:

A: One should not always use harsh rebuke. Sometimes it does more harm than good.
B: Oh, like when someone is in a burning building? You should just ask them to gently leave? Or maybe just let the building burn because you don't want to wake them?
A: Uh, no. That's extremist. I said "always." Sometimes it is inappropriate, such as, when a child does something that is relatively innocent, like playing doctor.
B: So we should NEVER use harsh rebuke?
A: AHHHHHHH! I said we should not ALWAYS use rebuke. It's not an always or never issue.I think you make some good points and I think allot of your frustration is simply the result of the limitations of an internet forum. It would be far easier at times to talk one on one and many of the misunderstandings would vanish.

You continue...I don't know if you were in a screaming match over the Trinity during a Christmas Eve dinner, and telling your relative that they were going to burn in hell, while their kids sat there with tears streaming down their face, or if you were just confronting someone about their drinking problem, and how it is affecting the family.The specific situation is somewhat irrelevant I only used it as a vehicle to get to the question is the term "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" applicable to biblical evangelism?

You continue..."You're going to hellll!" The latter brings back a memory of being 7 or 8, when my neighbors seemed to delight in telling me that, because I was Protestant, and they were Catholic. It begins by putting the other person on the defense. And that was never Christ's approach.You see that is the point... sometimes Jesus DID use that approach!“Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? - Matthew 23:33

[His_saving_Grac]

Actually, Goose, you ARE boasting of yourself. You did not reply in humbleness, but out of personal pride.

You say that satan tempted Christ with scripture, but I have yet to read those verses in our bibles.

As Josephus Flavious reported, as well the Talmud, the pharisees were actually very religious and helpd tightly to their convictions. They both claim (and saw during their life times since they were written soon after the death of Jesus) the pharisees were " experts in scriptural interpretation, who remained in close touch with the ordinary people, working alongside them as humble tailors, showmakers and the like, and endgendering much affection for their education of children, for their founding of regional synagogues, and for the developement of an oral tradition of religious wisdom..." (Jesus: The Evidence by Ian Wilson, Page 105)

The author who is a christian, further went on that Josephus describe them having the "multitude on their side" They did not like the Roman regime and let them know. They had a paramilitary wing (the zealots) from which Simon the disciple came and probably Judas Iscariot also since Iscariot is closer to a nickname of "daggerman" or "assassin".

The pharisees entertained Jesus socially and exhibited a genuine concern for his safety (Luke 7:36; 13:31; 14;1 and elsewhere) anc according to Acts it was a pharisee called Gamaliel who supported the jewish christian community shortly after Jesus death against the jewish Sanhedrin (acts 5:34-40).

The pharisees believed in angels and spirits, and a conviction of a bodily ressurection at the end of time which is why they were against creamation of the body.

The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected all of this and it was their High Preist, Caiaphas, who hated Jesus the most and condemed him to death. They were the rich ones making the money off of the poor through the contributions to the church, buying up the poor people land and making them have to work the fields they once owned.

You claim satan is a religious leader, which I think you misstated. Satan does not appear in person to people demanding their worship. It is only once even mentioned in the bible, and that was the testing of Jesus. Those who claim to worship him have never met him, and 99.9% of what you see in movies is false.

So just as God is not a religious leader, neither is satan. God demands not our worship, but our love.

[Knight]

Beanie says...Even if this were true, can we then say that it is okay to randomly call people vipers?Randomnly calling people "viper's" would not only be wrong but psychotic don't you think?

You continue...Do you honestly think calling someone a slut, and then telling them that God can save them, is going to make them say, "Hey, I want to follow your religion?"Certainly not initially, but it is a Christians obligation to tell a sinner what the consequences of their actions will be.You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. - Leviticus 19:17

1Timothy 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear.

2Timothy 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,

Titus 2:15 Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you. Speak the truth and let let the chips fall where the may!

[His_saving_Grac]

ND, PLEASE quit using the concordances and just read the entire bible. Quit looking up the word you want (in this case, rebuke) and then posting the passages you deem fit. If you read the entire bible, you will see that it is overwhelmingly against your thoughts.

[Knight]

HSG writes...ND, PLEASE quit using the concordances and just read the entire bible. Quit looking up the word you want (in this case, rebuke) and then posting the passages you deem fit. If you read the entire bible, you will see that it is overwhelmingly against your thoughts.In this case the word "rebuke" was 100% relevant to the discussion.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
HSG writes...In this case the word "rebuke" was 100% relevant to the discussion. I know it was relevant to your part of the discussion, but the words would loose their meaning in the overall context of the bible. You see, a concordance just shows you where that word is used, it does not give context. The Bible itself is the context. Everything must be read as a whole. The bible teaches us much, but as has been pointed out, it can be taken out of contest.

To use an example, monogamy is what we are taught. One husband, one wife. But if we look at the lives of all those who are people we rever in the OT, polygamy was the basis, rather that the exception. Only one person in the OT heros or leaders was monogamous. All others were polygamous. I challenge you to identify the only one (And it is NOT Adam)

If we also pick and choose our verses, incest is good, murder is good, infantcide is good, lying is good, greed is good, I can go on and on. It isn't until we read the entire book as a whole that we see the faults in verses. In fact, were it not for king James, the bible would HAVE to be read as a book, since chapters and verses did not exist until he placed them there.

You concordance is removing you from the entire word of God Instead of reading the bible, you look up only those verses supporting your claims. This is the biased way for knowing God. You have your belief and only want to read those words that agree with your belief. And that is exactly what a concordance does. It helps you find the words for your belief without having to read the entire bible and getting ALL of the wisdom contained therewithin. You are doing God and injustice, as well as hurting yourself by skipping everything but what a concordance (made by a man) has deemed nessessary for his biases also.

That is why you needed me to point out certain scripture. You didn't have a key word, so it wasn't accessable to you in the concordance, and you hadn't read it yourself in the bible. Don't you feel you are missing out of something great by doing this?

[Knight]

HSG please demonstrate how biblical context on the word 'rebuke' would change anything regarding this thread and discussion.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
HSG please demonstrate how biblical context on the word 'rebuke' would change anything regarding this thread and discussion. I will exactly when you can show me why the reading of a concordance overrides the reading of the bible, You seem stuck on this idea, when what I was trying to point out to you is the usage of a concordance instead of knowledge of the entire bible is not beneficial to our faith.

The bible is a whole. It is not a bunch of individual parts to be taken as you see fit. Paul explains this in 2 Corinthians.

Why do you get upset when I ask you to try to see another point of view? I have already shown that I once believed as you do. I know better now. What will it hurt you to become completely familiar with the entire bible?

[Knight]

HSG writes...I will exactly when you can show me why the reading of a concordance overrides the reading of the bibleOK, from now on before either one of us posts we must read the entire Bible, I will start now and get back to you in about two weeks (I am a slow reader). ;)

You continue...Why do you get upset when I ask you to try to see another point of view?Who is upset? I am having a ball!

[beanieboy]

Knight - Would you mind providing, at least, a hypothetical situation? Then explain how you would approach it, and the issue you have with those who never want to offend anyone, and explain the effect of your approach.

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by beanieboy

In the passage where Jesus was harsh with the Pharissees, he said that they made their converts twice as prepared for hell as they were themselves. Isn't, in KNOWINGLY misusing a passage, and equating it to permission to calling people outside the church vipers, at it's best, irresponsible, and at it worst, just bold face lying?

You never answered this.

[Goose]

His Saving Grace,

Actually, Goose, you ARE boasting of yourself. You did not reply in humbleness, but out of personal pride.

Could you point out where I boasted of myself? Personal pride in what? In God? I am prideful of God. No more than a servent is prideful of his righteous master. If a master forgave you of your debts, would you not rejoice and tell people out in the streets? Or have a high countanence?

You say that satan tempted Christ with scripture, but I have yet to read those verses in our bibles.

What bible are you reading? I just quoted the place in the bible where it is written! I'll do it again. Read the whole thing. It's cool. You mentioned that you might have heard about this or something which is cool. Luke 4:1-13 for all three temptations.

Luke 4:9-13 "And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:And in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season."

This is fundamental christian stuff. Most non-believers know about these verses. I can't believe you're telling Knight about how he needs to get back to the bible and taking things out of context, when you obviously haven't read some key points of it.

You claim satan is a religious leader, which I think you misstated. Satan does not appear in person to people demanding their worship. It is only once even mentioned in the bible, and that was the testing of Jesus. Those who claim to worship him have never met him, and 99.9% of what you see in movies is false.

So just as God is not a religious leader, neither is satan. God demands not our worship, but our love.

I've never physically met Jesus, but in spirit. I'm sure it's the same way with satan. I'm not sure I understand you. Here's The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Editionmy definition of leader.

lead·er (ldr)
n.

1.One that leads or guides.
2.One who is in charge or in command of others.

By this definitions, Jesus leads christians, and he also commands christians. Jesus on earth, teaching the disciples is a good example of leading or guiding. The Ten Commandments(or even the Two Commandments) are a good example of commanding. He will be the King in Heaven! A leader! Absolute authority.

You say that God demands love and not worship. How do you seperate these two? Can you point me in the right direction(bible story or something) if I'm being led astray? Thanks

[Goose]

Originally posted by Knight
HSG writes...Who is upset? I am having a ball!

Me too! This is fun!

[Knight]

beanie.... you write...Knight - Would you mind providing, at least, a hypothetical situation? Then explain how you would approach it, and the issue you have with those who never want to offend anyone, and explain the effect of your approach.Beanie I am sorry to mislead you, I am doing my best not to. But the situation or example is irrelevant at least in this debate.

The point is.... is the term "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" an appropriate term to use in relation to evangelizing to your loved ones? Is the term an effective strategy guide? And is it a strategy or saying that Jesus would have used.

[Kate]

Why Should We Witness?

Have you ever asked yourself, "Why should I witness?" Several reasons should come to mind. First, because Jesus commands you to: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28:19). Also, Ezek. 3:11 says, "and go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not..."

Second, you must witness because you love the unsaved (if you don't, you should). The most loving thing you can do is present the gospel in hopes of bringing others to salvation. Galatians 5:22 lists love as one of the fruit of the Spirit. It is love's nature to give. Take for example John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." Love gives, and if you have only a small portion of His love, you will want to give to others.

Third, witness because it is a wise thing to do. Prov. 11:30 says, "...he who is wise wins souls." Now, I know I am not a very wise person. But, since God says I'll be wise to win souls, or try to, then great, let me at it. I want to be wise in God's sight.

Fourth, witness to keep people out of hell. Hell is a terrifying place of utter anguish and eternal separation from God. Those who are not saved go there. Witnessing is an attempt to keep them out of hell.

Fifth, witness because it pleases God and brings glory to His name.

And finally, and most important, witness so they may find the love and fellowship of God (1 John 1:3), the greatest of all treasures. I can think of no greater gift than salvation. It frees the sinner from sin, it delivers the lost from damnation, and it reveals the true and living God to those who don't know Him.

The angels of heaven rejoice greatly when anyone passes from judgment into salvation (Luke 15:10). Shouldn't we as Christians rejoice too? Shouldn't we weep over the lost? Shouldn't we ask the Lord of the field to send laborers into His harvest (Luke 10:2)? Certainly! The salvation of others is the goal of your efforts. The love of God is your motive. Is there anything greater? So, give.

From: http://www.carm.org/evangelism/whywitness.htm

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by goose
His Saving Grace,



I've never physically met Jesus, but in spirit. I'm sure it's the same way with satan. I'm not sure I understand you. Here's The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Editionmy definition of leader.

lead·er (ldr)
n.

1.One that leads or guides.
2.One who is in charge or in command of others.

By this definitions, Jesus leads christians, and he also commands christians. Jesus on earth, teaching the disciples is a good example of leading or guiding. The Ten Commandments(or even the Two Commandments) are a good example of commanding. He will be the King in Heaven! A leader! Absolute authority.

You say that God demands love and not worship. How do you seperate these two? Can you point me in the right direction(bible story or something) if I'm being led astray? Thanks To the part about satan that didn't show up here, I am talking about the scriptures that satan was supposedly quoting. Not where the temptation happened. I am very curious about the temptation written in Luke since, even at best guess, Luke is attributed to having been the Physician companion of Paul. Paul, by his own words was not taught by Jesus, but immediately went out and preached the word.. Since Luke never met Jesus, how did HE, of all paople, find out what happened in secret in the desert between Jesus and satan, when none of the Apostles themselves seemed to have heard of this story.

As to you definition, I'm really not sure what you are trying to get at here. Jesus never said for anyone to worship Him. It is no where in the bible. God is a different story, but not Jesus. There is not one verse in the entire bible talking about worshiping Jesus, but to worship God there are many.

Satan is not woreshipped. Those who claim satanism will admit themselves it is just because they are going against the grain. They do not believe satan exists, nor that he grants anything to their calls. They only want the freedom to do as they please, and most often this is sexual. I know since they tried to enlinst me more than once.

As to the boasting part, Paul explains it very well all through both books of Corinthians. Read through them slowly and you will see what I meant.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
beanie.... you write...Beanie I am sorry to mislead you, I am doing my best not to. But the situation or example is irrelevant at least in this debate.

The point is.... is the term "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" an appropriate term to use in relation to evangelizing to your loved ones? Is the term an effective strategy guide? And is it a strategy or saying that Jesus would have used. ND, I sincerely want to compliment you on your change of posting style. You have answered BB in humility and in love. Thank you.

I still disagree with your basic premise, but I will say that you are using honey right now, and it is working.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Kate
Why Should We Witness?

Have you ever asked yourself, "Why should I witness?" Several reasons should come to mind. First, because Jesus commands you to: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28:19). Also, Ezek. 3:11 says, "and go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not..."

Second, you must witness because you love the unsaved (if you don't, you should). The most loving thing you can do is present the gospel in hopes of bringing others to salvation. Galatians 5:22 lists love as one of the fruit of the Spirit. It is love's nature to give. Take for example John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." Love gives, and if you have only a small portion of His love, you will want to give to others.

Third, witness because it is a wise thing to do. Prov. 11:30 says, "...he who is wise wins souls." Now, I know I am not a very wise person. But, since God says I'll be wise to win souls, or try to, then great, let me at it. I want to be wise in God's sight.

Fourth, witness to keep people out of hell. Hell is a terrifying place of utter anguish and eternal separation from God. Those who are not saved go there. Witnessing is an attempt to keep them out of hell.

Fifth, witness because it pleases God and brings glory to His name.

And finally, and most important, witness so they may find the love and fellowship of God (1 John 1:3), the greatest of all treasures. I can think of no greater gift than salvation. It frees the sinner from sin, it delivers the lost from damnation, and it reveals the true and living God to those who don't know Him.

The angels of heaven rejoice greatly when anyone passes from judgment into salvation (Luke 15:10). Shouldn't we as Christians rejoice too? Shouldn't we weep over the lost? Shouldn't we ask the Lord of the field to send laborers into His harvest (Luke 10:2)? Certainly! The salvation of others is the goal of your efforts. The love of God is your motive. Is there anything greater? So, give.

From: http://www.carm.org/evangelism/whywitness.htm Fantastic post. The only thing that I think should be added, is an explanation on HOW to witness. That seems to be a topic of debate here. Witnessing is great only IF it reaps the rewards of more souls for God. If, in our witnessing, we drive others from God, then we are not witnessing correctly.

You are witnessing correctly (although I personally won't use the fear of hell as a reason. If they won't come for love, then they shouldn't come for fear) but I agree 100% in what you have said.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
OK, from now on before either one of us posts we must read the entire Bible, I will start now and
get back to you in about two weeks (I am a slow reader). well OK then, but I have already done this more than once, so that means I can post while you take a break.:p

(If you can honestly read the entire bible in 2 week I honestly commend you. I am a very fast reader who eats up books. I had read several thousand Sci Fi/Fantasy books by the age of 21, but there is no way I could read the entire bible start to finish in two weeks. I could read the NT in 2 weeks, but not the OT.)

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Knight
beanie.... you write...Beanie I am sorry to mislead you, I am doing my best not to. But the situation or example is irrelevant at least in this debate.

The point is.... is the term "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" an appropriate term to use in relation to evangelizing to your loved ones? Is the term an effective strategy guide? And is it a strategy or saying that Jesus would have used.

Jesus did use it. Remember the woman about to be stoned? He wasn't calling her a whore. He wasn't even carrying around a bag of stones looking for someone who deserved to be killed. He just happened to be passing by. And before he told her to sin no more, he said, "neither do I condemn you." Not exactly "vinegar" in my book.

Then again, sometimes JC was pretty harsh. I mean, that whole "vipers brood" thing, the man went off.

So, would he say the honey/vinegar thing? Maybe. I think he would especially apply it to some diciple who was berating someone into submitting to God. "Repent, dang it! REPENT, you stupid whore! Do you want to go to hell? Is that what you want?"
I think JC would say it in an EXAMPLE like that. In fact, I think he would say, "Look at yourself! You're angry. You're name calling. You're spitting poisin. You are making this about you, and it's about her and God. Now, go in the corner for a time out, and think about what you said."

Personally, in my experience, most people respond stronger to encouragement than they do to shame. Most people, when told that they are worth something, actually start to respect themselves.

If someone has a drinking problem, and has crashed their car, been fired from their job because they miss work so much, and their wife has left them, yet insists they don't have a problem, you may have to be a little more harsh. But ultimately, there is little you can do if they refuse to get help.

My brother-in-law used to be rather confrontational with me about my religious beliefs, and as a favor to my mother, would try and get me to believe what he believed. Because he wouldn't listen to me, I told him that I wouldn't listen to him. I would say something like "god is inside all of us." And he would say, "When I look inside, all I see is evil and darkness." And I would say, "That's really sad. I'm sorry that that is all you can see. It must make you feel very bad about yourself. " He would explain that the only good in him was God. I would say, "I thought you had God INSIDE your heart." He would get frustrated and then say something about tempting my eternal fate of doom in hell by my "new age" ideas. I would say, "and you risk joy in this life thinking that all that you are is evil, and all the good in you comes from some other source." And then it got heated. "Uncomfortable," you could say, to the point where I finally just stopped talking. The vinegar thing, in this case, wasn't working. It was obvious. And like a wind blowing harder and harder, trying to get a jacket off a man, I wrapped the jacket even tighter around my body.

My brother was a pastor. His views are open, because they were constantly challenged in school. He listens to me, and because he listens to me, I listen to him. At first I was reluctant to talk to him, but soon I learned that instead of prejudging me, he would listen and try to understand me and accept my ideas, and then give me something that challenged them. He is like the sun that comes out, and because the sun gently shines on the man, the man opens his jacket, and eventually takes it off.

Many people approached Jesus who did not approach the religious leaders. What was it that Jesus did that was different

[beanieboy]

Originally posted by Knight
beanie.... you write...Beanie I am sorry to mislead you, I am doing my best not to. But the situation or example is irrelevant at least in this debate.

The point is.... is the term "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" an appropriate term to use in relation to evangelizing to your loved ones? Is the term an effective strategy guide? And is it a strategy or saying that Jesus would have used.

Jesus did use it. Remember the woman about to be stoned? He wasn't calling her a whore. He wasn't even carrying around a bag of stones looking for someone who deserved to be killed. He just happened to be passing by. And before he told her to sin no more, he said, "neither do I condemn you." Not exactly "vinegar" in my book.

Then again, sometimes JC was pretty harsh. I mean, that whole "vipers brood" thing, the man went off.

So, would he say the honey/vinegar thing? Maybe. I think he would especially apply it to some diciple who was berating someone into submitting to God. "Repent, dang it! REPENT, you stupid whore! Do you want to go to hell? Is that what you want?"
I think JC would say it in an EXAMPLE like that. In fact, I think he would say, "Look at yourself! You're angry. You're name calling. You're spitting poisin. You are making this about you, and it's about her and God. Now, go in the corner for a time out, and think about what you said."

Personally, in my experience, most people respond stronger to encouragement than they do to shame. Most people, when told that they are worth something, actually start to respect themselves.

If someone has a drinking problem, and has crashed their car, been fired from their job because they miss work so much, and their wife has left them, yet insists they don't have a problem, you may have to be a little more harsh. But ultimately, there is little you can do if they refuse to get help.

My brother-in-law used to be rather confrontational with me about my religious beliefs, and as a favor to my mother, would try and get me to believe what he believed. Because he wouldn't listen to me, I told him that I wouldn't listen to him. I would say something like "god is inside all of us." And he would say, "When I look inside, all I see is evil and darkness." And I would say, "That's really sad. I'm sorry that that is all you can see. It must make you feel very bad about yourself. " He would explain that the only good in him was God. I would say, "I thought you had God INSIDE your heart." He would get frustrated and then say something about tempting my eternal fate of doom in hell by my "new age" ideas. I would say, "and you risk joy in this life thinking that all that you are is evil, and all the good in you comes from some other source." And then it got heated. "Uncomfortable," you could say, to the point where I finally just stopped talking. The vinegar thing, in this case, wasn't working. It was obvious. And like a wind blowing harder and harder, trying to get a jacket off a man, I wrapped the jacket even tighter around my body.

My brother was a pastor. His views are open, because they were constantly challenged in school. He listens to me, and because he listens to me, I listen to him. At first I was reluctant to talk to him, but soon I learned that instead of prejudging me, he would listen and try to understand me and accept my ideas, and then give me something that challenged them. He is like the sun that comes out, and because the sun gently shines on the man, the man opens his jacket, and eventually takes it off.

Prostitutes, lepers, taxcollects, and the other rejects of soeciety approached Jesus who did not approach the religious leaders. What was it that Jesus did that was different?

[Atheist_Divine]

HSG,
Just a tiny point - King James wasn't the one who added the verse and chapters to the Bible, that came rather earlier. In the middle ages, I think :)

[Goose]

.

[Goose]

Originally posted by His_saving_Grac
To the part about satan that didn't show up here, I am talking about the scriptures that satan was supposedly quoting. Not where the temptation happened.

Psa 91:11 "For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways."

I am very curious about the temptation written in Luke since, even at best guess, Luke is attributed to having been the Physician companion of Paul. Paul, by his own words was not taught by Jesus, but immediately went out and preached the word.. Since Luke never met Jesus, how did HE, of all paople, find out what happened in secret in the desert between Jesus and satan, when none of the Apostles themselves seemed to have heard of this story.

Why would Jesus keep His Word a secret? He came as the light of the world! Not to hide it under a bushel. I'm sure he told his people everything. I wasn't there, only in the Holy Spirit which Jesus had, but I believe on that. Something you obviously don't have a lot of belief in.

You say you're curious? I'd say you're trying to discredit the Word of God! You just haven't spoken it verbaly yet. I see it in your way of speech. I've seen your posts in other forums. I'm not sure what it is, but you let something get in the way of Truth. BeanieBoy speaks more truth than you, and he says he's not even a believer! At least he's TRYING to sort out his thoughts with a somewhat open heart. How can you use the bible as a resource for your "Godly" arguments when you don't even believe that the bible is the Word of God? It's ok if you don't understand something and have a question, but you doubt, and then use your doubting power on Christians in front of non-believers! I've seen your other posts in other forums. You viper! As subtle and wise as a serpent, but venom spits from your tongue and poisons the hearts of many!

As to you definition, I'm really not sure what you are trying to get at here. Jesus never said for anyone to worship Him. It is no where in the bible. God is a different story, but not Jesus. There is not one verse in the entire bible talking about worshiping Jesus, but to worship God there are many.

I never said you should worship Jesus. You worship His Father in Heaven. Am I clear?

Satan is not woreshipped. Those who claim satanism will admit themselves it is just because they are going against the grain. They do not believe satan exists, nor that he grants anything to their calls. They only want the freedom to do as they please, and most often this is sexual. I know since they tried to enlinst me more than once.

As unplausible as it may sound:

The first step in accepting evil is denying it's existence. Accept that evil is on this earth, and abhor it.

As to the boasting part, Paul explains it very well all through both books of Corinthians. Read through them slowly and you will see what I meant.

I read it all again last night. It just re-affirmed my beliefs even more, that you like to take things out of context. Thank you, thank you, Thank YOU for the passion to read it again!

[beanieboy]

I was thinking about the "Salt of the earth" thing, and the salt in the wound analogy. I don't know if that applies, really. Salt, at the time, was worth a lot of money. It's where 'salary' comes from. It's why wealthy people told their servants that it was bad luck to spill salt. And it is a spice. It enhances things.

One could argue that it cuts like the truth as in 'salt in the wound." But then, I could offer up that salt poured over the ground will kill all plant life and the like, and a person can thirst to death in the ocean because of the salt the water contains.

[Goose]

Originally posted by beanieboy


Jesus did use it. Remember the woman about to be stoned? He wasn't calling her a whore. He wasn't even carrying around a bag of stones looking for someone who deserved to be killed. He just happened to be passing by. And before he told her to sin no more, he said, "neither do I condemn you." Not exactly "vinegar" in my book.

Yes, but I've come to find that that wasn't what the passage was about. Let's read the whole thing:

John 8:1-11 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.


I've had a bout with this story myself. At first, I was highly confused because I didn't know what it meant.

The reason why the people took the adulterer to Jesus, wasn't to condemn her, but to condemn Jesus! Let me explain.

Under the Roman government and law of the time, the Jews couldn't use their way of governing to punish. They had to first go to the Roman government and have them tried there. I'm not sure on the exacts, but this is the general idea. Therefore, they had to have an accusation against Jesus in order for him to be punished. It is written in verse 6! Very important, "This they said, tempting him, that they might have accuse him..." They didn't care about the woman! She was a pawn to them. They really wanted Jesus to condemn her to death, so that they could take Jesus to the Romans and say that he was usurping the government by sending this woman to death. but Jesus' "...hour has not come".

Jesus spoke so ill of sin, but he forgave this sinner without her even speaking a word of repentance, let alone not putting her to death. I bet that just acknowledging Him as Lord, like she does in verse 11 she said, "No man, Lord". By calling him this, she accepts His authority and his power to wash away sin. When Jesus says to, "Go and sin no more", she accepts it as coming from a high power, and does it. Jesus had that power while he was on earth. I think of the thief on the cross next to Jesus, in a similar aspect. YOu might want to search and read that.

Another note. Jesus was writing in the ground with his finger. What could he have been writing? The only other time the Lord wrote with his finger, was when he wrote the Ten Commandments with it in stone. I wonder what he was writing? Thou shalt not...:) Isn't this wonderful? This story shows the healing power and righteous judgement of the Lord.

Then again, sometimes JC was pretty harsh. I mean, that whole "vipers brood" thing, the man went off.

So VERY true Beanie! Good job!

My brother was a pastor. His views are open, because they were constantly challenged in school. He listens to me, and because he listens to me, I listen to him. At first I was reluctant to talk to him, but soon I learned that instead of prejudging me, he would listen and try to understand me and accept my ideas, and then give me something that challenged them. He is like the sun that comes out, and because the sun gently shines on the man, the man opens his jacket, and eventually takes it off.

It seems like you need to talk with your brother more! He seems like a good christian to talk to huh? Remember, there are a very small amount of actual christians out there. Of course there are the non-believers, but then there are the people who call themselves christians, who aren't. If your brother speaks the Truth and touches you with the Spirit, talk to him.

[Goose]

Originally posted by beanieboy
I was thinking about the "Salt of the earth" thing, and the salt in the wound analogy. I don't know if that applies, really. Salt, at the time, was worth a lot of money. It's where 'salary' comes from. It's why wealthy people told their servants that it was bad luck to spill salt. And it is a spice. It enhances things.

One could argue that it cuts like the truth as in 'salt in the wound." But then, I could offer up that salt poured over the ground will kill all plant life and the like, and a person can thirst to death in the ocean because of the salt the water contains.

Great points! I pertain it more towards food. Even in the OT when the armies would conquer a nation, they would salt the enemy's fields so nothing could grow there I think.

Mat 5:13 "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men."

I think it has do to with something of modesty and balance. I'm not sure.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by goose


I read it all again last night. It just re-affirmed my beliefs even more, that you like to take things out of context. Thank you, thank you, Thank YOU for the passion to read it again! Whatever. you don't know me nor my posts on this forum. You opinion just shows I was correct about your boasting since you feel the need to belittle anyone who asks a question. I am not the first to bring it up nor the last.

Enjoy your life. May God bless you and all those you love. Goodbye.

[Knight]

HSG writes...You're spitting poisin.Actually I have never met anyone yet spit more poison than you. Seriously! You lie (or at very least embellish) what I and others think and write. To me that is poison.

You continue...The vinegar thing, in this case, wasn't working. It was obvious. And like a wind blowing harder and harder, trying to get a jacket off a man, I wrapped the jacket even tighter around my body.But now you claim to be a Christian! maybe your brothers efforts paid off in the long run!

As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned... I myself did NOT come to Jesus with honey but with vinegar.

You continue...Prostitutes, lepers, taxcollects, and the other rejects of soeciety approached Jesus who did not approach the religious leaders. What was it that Jesus did that was different?And how did Jesus act towards these sinners? Was He accepting of their sin? Or did He rebuke them? Please show me ONE instance where Jesus was accepting of a sinners lifestyle and did not tell them they should stop sinning and repent. And did Jesus ever tell anyone that it was OK to have a sinful lifestyle.

[Knight]

Goose great points about the woman caught in adultery, I have had to explain that story MANY times on this forum.

You say...Another note. Jesus was writing in the ground with his finger. What could he have been writing? The only other time the Lord wrote with his finger, was when he wrote the Ten Commandments with it in stone. I wonder what he was writing? Thou shalt not... Isn't this wonderful? This story shows the healing power and righteous judgement of the Lord.I have another take on what Jesus might have been writing in the sand...

Keep in mind the Pharisees and scribes knew the 10 commandants pretty well in fact that was the very reason that they were bringing the woman to Him...John 8:5 “Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?....so I do not think He was writing the 10 commandments in the sand, if He were writing the 10 commandments in the sand the scribes and Pharisees probably wouldn't have ran away so quickly.

Think about this....

Jesus asked them...“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”Any of the men could have asserted they were without sin.

But Jesus then wrote some more on the ground, and then the text says....Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscienceWhat could have convicted them in their conscience? Certainly not a re-telling of "Thou shall not commit adultery".

Jesus was most likely writing the names of the women that these Pharisees and scribes had committed adultery with themselves! You know like.... "Shirley..... Judy...... Alice...... etc." Now that would rock these guys world! And serve three functions:

1. Convict their consciences.
2. Make them realize Jesus knew things that He shouldn't.
3. Make a QUICK end to the "would be" trap.

Just food for thought!

[Goose]

HSG,
Originally posted by His_saving_Grac
Whatever. you don't know me nor my posts on this forum. You opinion just shows I was correct about your boasting since you feel the need to belittle anyone who asks a question. I am not the first to bring it up nor the last.

Enjoy your life. May God bless you and all those you love. Goodbye.

I Timothy 5:20 "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

I know of your previous posts. They're archived on this server! You feed the unbelievers with your wicked fruit.

Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Proverbs 24:25 But to them that rebuke [him] shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.

Thank you for your wish of my/loved ones blessing from God!

I don't come or wish to destroy you brother, but to refine you.

[Goose]

Originally posted by Knight
....Jesus was most likely writing the names of the women that these Pharisees and scribes had committed adultery with themselves! You know like.... "Shirley..... Judy...... Alice...... etc." Now that would rock these guys world! And serve three functions:

1. Convict their consciences.
2. Make them realize Jesus knew things that He shouldn't.
3. Make a QUICK end to the "would be" trap.

Just food for thought!

WOW! Awesome! Such truth through the Spirit! I'm going to have to tell my friends this one.

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
HSG writes...And how did Jesus act towards these sinners? Was He accepting of their sin? Or did He rebuke them? Please show me ONE instance where Jesus was accepting of a sinners lifestyle and did not tell them they should stop sinning and repent. And did Jesus ever tell anyone that it was OK to have a sinful lifestyle. Exactly WHO are you responding to, because I did not say even one of these things. YOU need to go back and find the person who DID.

How do I dis-enroll from this sickening place?

[Atheist_Divine]

goose,
"Under the Roman government and law of the time, the Jews couldn't use their way of governing to punish. They had to first go to the Roman government and have them tried there. I'm not sure on the exacts, but this is the general idea. Therefore, they had to have an accusation against Jesus in order for him to be punished. It is written in verse 6! Very important, "This they said, tempting him, that they might have accuse him..." They didn't care about the woman! She was a pawn to them. They really wanted Jesus to condemn her to death, so that they could take Jesus to the Romans and say that he was usurping the government by sending this woman to death. but Jesus' "...hour has not come".

This is a disputed point. Jewish records suggest that the Jews could and did execute during the time of Jesus, and had the right to do so in matters pertaining to Jewish Law without advising the Prefect. Other Roman provinces were able to pronounce the death penalty in certain cases without asking the Prefect, too. On the other hand, the Gospels say they could not.

~AD~

[beanieboy]

Goose - you left out one thing.

Jesus said, The man who was without sin can cast the first stone.

Jesus was without sin. He was a man. Yet he didn't cast any stones. Why?

Was he using vinegar or honey here?

And what was the woman's response?

[Goose]

Originally posted by Atheist_Divine
goose,


This is a disputed point. Jewish records suggest that the Jews could and did execute during the time of Jesus, and had the right to do so in matters pertaining to Jewish Law without advising the Prefect. Other Roman provinces were able to pronounce the death penalty in certain cases without asking the Prefect, too. On the other hand, the Gospels say they could not.

~AD~

I see what you're saying but it just doesn't fit. Why would Jesus of had to see Roman authority AFTER the Jewish council(Luke 22:66)? Why didn't they just stone him there? Why did he die on a Roman cross and not stoned? If anything, this is a testimony to just how close Jesus fulfilled the scripture. The bible even says Luke 23:25 "...for sedition and murder..." I don't think sedition is a Jewish law, but a Roman Law! This isn't suggestive. It's in the bible.

As for the adulterer, it says that "She was caught in the very act..." Where's the other partaker of the sin? He would have been caught just as easily as she, but he, the other partaker, is not there. Under the Law of Moses, both adulterers are to be put to death. Not just one. It was an unjust mock-trial to begin with. Their conscience drove them away, like the scripture says.

[Atheist_Divine]

Exactly, goose, Jesus was tried and convicted for crimes against Rome, not against Judaism. He was executed for political crimes, not for blasphemy.

[Goose]

Originally posted by beanieboy
Goose - you left out one thing.

Jesus said, The man who was without sin can cast the first stone.

Jesus was without sin. He was a man. Yet he didn't cast any stones. Why?

1 Timothy 1:15 "This a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."
That's why. That's also why it is SO important to repent! We can repent and be sorry with our spirit if anything, so we can accept God's Grace and enter Heaven when our spirit leaves our body. If we did something wrong, God can wash it away and even carry us if need be. We must accept that He has the power to do these things. I hope that takes care of your question? Good observations.


Was he using vinegar or honey here?
I don't remember Jesus using either, but I can tell you this: He was using forgiveness because of her repentance. He saw this woman as a scapegoat for an even wickeder sin than adultery. She might not of even knew that he could take away her sin, yet she acknowledged Jesus as the King of Kings. This added meaning, depth and flavor to her life. Like salt to a meal, it added sustanance. She said:
John 8:11 "She said, No man, [I]Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
See? I even emphasized the word LORD for everyone. I wouldn't call anyone Lord or Master unless I was being sarcastic, or they really were Mater of Lord to me. I doubt she was being sarcastic. Plus, the Pharisees didn't even condemn her! They just tried to bring her to condemnation. They wanted Jesus to condemn her so that he could be tried! "No one.." condemned her. No one brought her forth for her sin, but for their own beguiling. Jesus just didn't say "go" he said, "go, and sin no more". He said, "niether do I condemn thee". He forgave her for repenting. He didn't condemn her but he didn't just let her go to still sin either.


And what was the woman's response?
John 8:11 "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

[Goose]

Originally posted by Atheist_Divine
Exactly, goose, Jesus was tried and convicted for crimes against Rome, not against Judaism. He was executed for political crimes, not for blasphemy.

What was the cause of him being tried in the first place? He was condemned by both.

[Atheist_Divine]

If the Sanhedrin had indeed convicted him of blasphemy they could have executed him right there, no need to go to Pilate. But as the gospels agree that he was executed by Pilate, it would seem reasonable to assume that he was, in fact, charged with treason, rather than blasphemy. It could be that the Jewish trial never happened, but was placed there to throw more blame on the Jews, than on the Romans. Particularly if you accept the dating of the Gospels to post-70. Jews weren't really in favour then.

[Knight]

Originally posted by His_saving_Grac
Exactly WHO are you responding to, because I did not say even one of these things. YOU need to go back and find the person who DID.Oooops your right, Beanie Boy wrote that! I am sorry sometimes it gets a little confusing responding to so many please accept my apology.How do I dis-enroll from this sickening place?Simple, you just stop coming to the site!

[Goose]

Originally posted by Atheist_Divine
If the Sanhedrin had indeed convicted him of blasphemy they could have executed him right there, no need to go to Pilate. But as the gospels agree that he was executed by Pilate, it would seem reasonable to assume that he was, in fact, charged with treason, rather than blasphemy. It could be that the Jewish trial never happened, but was placed there to throw more blame on the Jews, than on the Romans. Particularly if you accept the dating of the Gospels to post-70. Jews weren't really in favour then.

I accept the bible as truth and bear record from it. The Jews were the ones who bore false witness against Jesus in front of the governing authority. The authority that executed the law. Jesus was blameless. This is a HUGE topic and quite out of the scope of this thread.
John 19:10 "Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

[beanieboy]

Well, if we aren't going to use an example, I don't see a point of discussing vinegar/honey. The liberals will define vinegar as being verbally abusive, which is not necessarily true, and the conservatives will act like honey is being overly passive, which is also not necessarily true. And then we argue about this concept, except we aren't arguing the same thing.

As I recall, I can't think of one reject of society (tax collector, prostitute, etc.) that Jesus was harsh with. Sure, he was harsh to Peter, for example, but Peter was a disciple. And he didn't say, Hey, Peter, you disgusting pile of filth, I can turn your life around." He was gentle in calling all of the disciples.

I think the problem of the "vinegar" comes when someone has decided it is their duty to change the heart of someone, and doesn't have enough faith in God to be the messager, and let him do the rest of the work. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, you know?

There have been uses of exa