Matthew 3:7-8 - Example of name-calling as a means of outreach.
...but in all honesty Frank [ and respectfully too, I might add], that particular form of outreach, 'name-calling' used by John the Baptist and directed at the Pharisees and the Sadducees didn't quite work, did it?
In fact, wasn't it this same group of people that gave Him up to the barbaric Romans for crucifixion?
Don't you think it could very well have fanned the flames of hatred towards not just John, but in the end, the Christ Jesus?
"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he MUST BE KIND TO EVERYONE...Those who oppose him he must GENTLY instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance, leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses..." 2Tim 2:24-26
...but in all honesty Frank [ and respectfully too, I might add], that particular form of outreach used by John the Baptist and directed at the Pharisees and the Sadducees didn't quite work, did it?
In fact, wasn't it this same group of people that gave Him up to the barbaric Romans for crucifixion?
Hey! Somedays you're the bug and somedays you're the windshield (that would be windscreen where you are).
The other part is the Pharisees didn't give Him up to the Romans. They couldn't execute Jesus without Procurator permission. Pilate chose to be complicit in order to avoid some local nastiness. Even so I would suggest to you that the name-calling, such as it was, certainly got their attention. If one is going to advance an argument, one must get the attention of the potential listener, especially if that listener is powerful and entrenched. The Pharisees chose to remain powerful and entrenched.
As an exercise, why not paraphrase the words of John the Baptist in a nice non-name-calling way that would have gotten the desired result? Let me know what you come up with.
Okay Frank..
yes the name calling did get their attention...but looking at John's statement in verse 8 of that passage, did they , the Pharisees and Sadducees repent and go on to bear 'good' fruit, or did they ignore John the Baptist's name calling? I concede that I was in error in part re their handing Jesus up to the Romans. They were [ the chief priests and teachers of the law, as stated in Luke 23 ] however just as complicit in their actions in taking Him to Pilate as if they had put Him on the cross themselves.
I don't believe that you could paraphrase the name calling used by John the Baptist in such a way as to have the effect that would have been desirous, for it is evident from the Bible, that the hearts of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees were not to be swayed.
The thing is, that we are not privy to the contents of another man's heart, so our name calling may have exactly th same result as John's did with that particular group. It is interesting though that Jesus didn't name call Nicodemus in His ministry, and look at the fruit that supposedly was borne from that 'loving' approach .
"And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he MUST BE KIND TO EVERYONE...Those who oppose him he must GENTLY instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance, leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses..." 2Tim 2:24-26
Slogan/motto:
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on as though nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill
Reputation:
May 1st, 2005, 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. Matthew 15:15-16
Come on, Jesus, was that really necessary?
Again, that is Jesus.....God......He was privy to the hearts and minds of men.
We are not!
Mrs. Truthsmacker!
Jesus may love you, but I have to work at it!
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. - Stuart Chase
Slogan/motto:
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on as though nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill
Reputation:
May 1st, 2005, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Edge
So what's your point?
Me?
Mrs. Truthsmacker!
Jesus may love you, but I have to work at it!
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. - Stuart Chase
Slogan/motto:
To whom much is given, much is required.
...or...
With great power comes great responsibility.
Reputation:
May 1st, 2005, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agape4Robin
Again, that is Jesus.....God......He was privy to the hearts and minds of men.
We are not!
(I will remind you that Paul wrote that "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16) and that Jesus and Paul encouraged believers to judge rightly. So apparently it can be done.)
OK, so do you agree that it's OK to call someone a name so long as the judgment is right? If I understand you correctly, that is what you are saying.
For instance, twice the Psalmist wrote, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (14:, 53:1)
Some people openly state that they believe there is no God.
Is it OK to openly call such a people fools? Or is it wrong?
Slogan/motto:
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on as though nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill
Reputation:
May 1st, 2005, 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo
(I will remind you that Paul wrote that "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16) and that Jesus and Paul encouraged believers to judge rightly. So apparently it can be done.)
OK, so do you agree that it's OK to call someone a name so long as the judgment is right? If I understand you correctly, that is what you are saying.
For instance, twice the Psalmist wrote, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (14:, 53:1)
Some people openly state that they believe there is no God.
Is it OK to openly call such a people fools? Or is it wrong?
Judgement as it pertains to assessing a situation is always the right thing to do. If you show a person in scripture what God has to say about not believing in God, then it is not you saying that they are a fool. The offense is not on you. But no where in scripture is the word faggot or slut.
Even if it did, read context, context, context!!!!
Mrs. Truthsmacker!
Jesus may love you, but I have to work at it!
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. - Stuart Chase
Slogan/motto:
To whom much is given, much is required.
...or...
With great power comes great responsibility.
Reputation:
May 1st, 2005, 12:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agape4Robin
Judgement as it pertains to assessing a situation is always the right thing to do. If you show a person in scripture what God has to say about not believing in God, then it is not you saying that they are a fool. The offense is not on you.
Do I necessarily have to actually show them or quote the verse, or can I rightly just call atheists fools?
Quote:
But no where in scripture is the word faggot or slut.
So our namecalling must be strictly limited to those specifically used in the Bible?
Slut is out, but whore and whoremonger are in?
Faggot is out, but abomination, pervert, and sodomite are OK?
Linear Mode
