Video Gone Viral: Jesus Vs. Religion

[Jeff K.]

There is a big difference in the society that Christ existed in and ours. In Christ's time, the sinners knew they had done wrong, and felt rejected and condemned for all time. Christ never gave them absolution to sin, and called them to repentence. Today Christ would be rejected by the same people because he did not see what they did as an inherent right to do those things. They would have termed Christ evil and sinister and driven Him from among them, even as he told them that what they did was wrong and they should repent.

In some ways, we are very very different from that time. In other ways, we are very much the same, we still often shun, we still often condemn and disdain both sin and sinner.

[california boy]

I think this is as dangerous a misconception as the one which you are discussing. Jesus sat and ate with those who sought to be with him. These were they that sought to partake of the Living Water; they were in the process of looking for that which gave them peace and overcame sin. His call to them was repeatedly to repent. This was an invitation to each of us and remains just as effective today. The choice is ours; we must choose. We can sit down with him and partake, but when the bridegroom comes, our lamps must be full or we will be left behind.

He did not force himself on those who rejected his message of "go and sin no more". Regardless, what is absolutely true in what you discuss above, Jesus loved those around him and he was not interested in condemning them....unless of course one was a hypocrite. For them and for liars he had not pity and condemned them readily.

Are you trying to make the case that Christ would only sit with sinners that wanted to repent?? You think that if a person in sin was not willing to repent, then Christ would have nothing to do with them?? Personally I see not one instance in Christs life where he was not willing to be with someone, talk to someone, or break bread with someone regardless of who that person was. Your statement, if true, is just another instance where "religion" has changed the example that Christ set in my opinion.

[california boy]

There is a big difference in the society that Christ existed in and ours. In Christ's time, the sinners knew they had done wrong, and felt rejected and condemned for all time. Christ never gave them absolution to sin, and called them to repentence. Today Christ would be rejected by the same people because he did not see what they did as an inherent right to do those things. They would have termed Christ evil and sinister and driven Him from among them, even as he told them that what they did was wrong and they should repent.

In some ways, we are very very different from that time. In other ways, we are very much the same, we still often shun, we still often condemn and disdain both sin and sinner.

I agree with you that Christ never gave anyone absolution for their sins. Many sinners rejected Christ in his day and many embraced Him. Nothing is different here. What is clear is that Christ preached repeatedly about the evil of worrying about other peoples sins. (Does mote and beam come to mind or Matthew 7:1). Christ viewed sin as something an individual needs to work on. Churches today think it is a community project that because they preceive their sins are not as bad, they should be participating in others repentance process.

They would have termed Christ evil and sinister and driven Him from among them, even as he told them that what they did was wrong and they should repent.

I am confused here. Didn't the "church" do exactly that in Christ's day??? And we all know where that ended up for Him. Maybe you could explain again how different we are today from Christ's time.

[Jeff K.]

Are you trying to make the case that Christ would only sit with sinners that wanted to repent?? You think that if a person in sin was not willing to repent, then Christ would have nothing to do with them??

Does one cast pearls before the swine?

Personally I see not one instance in Christs life where he was not willing to be with someone, talk to someone, or break bread with someone regardless of who that person was. Your statement, if true, is just another instance where "religion" has changed the example that Christ set in my opinion.

You seem to misunderstand the statement, but thats ok. Christ was only with those who were repentant, but rejected by the powers that be. If one did not wish to repent, why sit with a person who calls you to repentance. Christ would sit with anyone wishing to repent, and avoided those who did not wish to repent or felt no need of repentance, that did not only include the leaders of religious sects.

I would suggest that it isn't religion that has changed the example of Christ in this case, it is instead the personal desires of the individual.

[Storm Rider]

Are you trying to make the case that Christ would only sit with sinners that wanted to repent?? You think that if a person in sin was not willing to repent, then Christ would have nothing to do with them?? Personally I see not one instance in Christs life where he was not willing to be with someone, talk to someone, or break bread with someone regardless of who that person was. Your statement, if true, is just another instance where "religion" has changed the example that Christ set in my opinion.

Are you trying to say that only people that hated Jesus and rejected his message wanted to sit with him? You are so defensive.

Who do you think wanted to sit with Jesus? Do you think these people were ignorant of his teachings? Did he or did he not repeatedly say to repent? Yes or no?

Each of us can twist the Bible to say exactly what we want it to say. To me, it is logical that the people who hung around Jesus were the ones who wanted to do so. They had heard his message and it was interesting enough for them to want to hear more. It was an open session to all who were interested. Do you think differently?

My opinion is worthless. However, what I can tell you is that it is illogical to assume only those who rejected Jesus hung out with him. It is illogical to assume they were ignorant of his gospel and his teachings. He constantly taught his disciples and all the people to repent. It is disheartening to think anyone can read the four gospels and say or think differently.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 January 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

There is a big difference in the society that Christ existed in and ours. In Christ's time, the sinners knew they had done wrong, and felt rejected and condemned for all time. Christ never gave them absolution to sin, and called them to repentence. Today Christ would be rejected by the same people because he did not see what they did as an inherent right to do those things. They would have termed Christ evil and sinister and driven Him from among them, even as he told them that what they did was wrong and they should repent.

In some ways, we are very very different from that time. In other ways, we are very much the same, we still often shun, we still often condemn and disdain both sin and sinner.

I agree with you that Christ never gave anyone absolution for their sins. Many sinners rejected Christ in his day and many embraced Him. Nothing is different here. What is clear is that Christ preached repeatedly about the evil of worrying about other peoples sins. (Does mote and beam come to mind or Matthew 7:1). Christ viewed sin as something an individual needs to work on. Churches today think it is a community project that because they preceive their sins are not as bad, they should be participating in others repentance process.

The difference is today, many of those sinners would be the first to crucify Christ. After all they would spit out at Christ not to "judge them" and that their sin was a right. Christ viewed the sin as something to overcome, but today, sin is viewed by many sinners as a "work in progress". The difference is important and reflective on how society has changed. Many will say they aren't sinning today, whereas in the days of Christ they knew it was bad and were willing to admit to the sin.

I am confused here. Didn't the "church" do exactly that in Christ's day??? And we all know where that ended up for Him. Maybe you could explain again how different we are today from Christ's time.

The sinners today do exactly what the establishment did in Christ's day. Not being part of the establishment does not free you from the same needed review of your life.

[mercyngrace]

Who exactly are "the sinners", Jeff?

[Jeff K.]

Everyone is a sinner, but some sins were and are certainly more heinous than others. One could be an adulterer, a thief, a killer, and so on. One could be seeking forgiveness or presuming the sin you are committing is a right and therefore you have "nothing to be ashamed of".

[Storm Rider]

Everyone is a sinner, but some sins were and are certainly more heinous than others. One could be an adulterer, a thief, a killer, and so on. One could be seeking forgiveness or presuming the sin you are committing is a right and therefore you have "nothing to be ashamed of".

Jeff, I know that some leaders have tried to quantify levels of sin. As I have gotten older I realize that it is meaningless to do so. First, as you have said we are all sinnners. Each of us, weather we know it or not or even acknowledge it, is on a path to return to our Father in Heaven. Sin, and its relative gravity, has more to do where we each are along that path. For some, we are just trying to get our carnal nature under control. For others, they are trying to love all people. For others, it is not to get angry. For each person the gravity of a sin is relative to where they are in their own progress and discipleship.

We cannot expect a person who is completely at the mercy of their carnal nature to grasp the import of the danger of anger. It does no good to compare ourselves to another's position or supposed degree of sinfulness. There was a reason that Christ turned to the thief and said he would be with him in paradise. I think of the widow with her two mites; she gave all she had. All that she had was two mites, a very small sum, but it was all she had. It is similar to those who do not have all they blessings of the gospel, but they still give all they have.

[california boy]

Does one cast pearls before the swine? You seem to misunderstand the statement, but thats ok. Christ was only with those who were repentant, but rejected by the powers that be. If one did not wish to repent, why sit with a person who calls you to repentance. Christ would sit with anyone wishing to repent, and avoided those who did not wish to repent or felt no need of repentance, that did not only include the leaders of religious sects. I would suggest that it isn't religion that has changed the example of Christ in this case, it is instead the personal desires of the individual.

I take it by defending your original statement that you are trying to make the case that Christ would only sit with sinners that wanted to repent?? Do you have any examples in the scriptues where Christ acutally practiced this idea? Do you know, one single instance where Christ said, you are a sinner and you are unwilling to repent, so I will have nothing to do with you? Or is this just something you made up about Christ to make you feel better. Cause I am still thinking that, yeah, religion has changed the teachings of Christ.

Edited January 27, 2012 by california boy

[california boy]

The difference is today, many of those sinners would be the first to crucify Christ. After all they would spit out at Christ not to "judge them" and that their sin was a right. Christ viewed the sin as something to overcome, but today, sin is viewed by many sinners as a "work in progress". The difference is important and reflective on how society has changed. Many will say they aren't sinning today, whereas in the days of Christ they knew it was bad and were willing to admit to the sin. The sinners today do exactly what the establishment did in Christ's day. Not being part of the establishment does not free you from the same needed review of your life.

I think there were plenty of people during Christ's lifetime that thought they were not sinning. There is no difference from today. Often it was those that "thought" they were the most holy that lead the charge to crucify him. It was also the ones that thought they were the most holy that as you said "would spit out at Christ not to "judge them".The Romans who clearly were not free of sin had little interest in crucifying Christ. I think that you could make a much stronger case that it would be the religious fanatics of today who think their sins are small compared to others around them that would be the ones today wanting to crucify Christ. Nothing has changed.

Like I said.

Nothing is different here. What is clear is that Christ preached repeatedly about the evil of worrying about other peoples sins. (Does mote and beam come to mind or Matthew 7:1). Christ viewed sin as something an individual needs to work on. Churches today think it is a community project that because they perceive their sins are not as bad, they should be participating in others repentance process.

Your response only reinforces my statement.

[california boy]

Jeff, I know that some leaders have tried to quantify levels of sin. As I have gotten older I realize that it is meaningless to do so. First, as you have said we are all sinnners. Each of us, weather we know it or not or even acknowledge it, is on a path to return to our Father in Heaven. Sin, and its relative gravity, has more to do where we each are along that path. For some, we are just trying to get our carnal nature under control. For others, they are trying to love all people. For others, it is not to get angry. For each person the gravity of a sin is relative to where they are in their own progress and discipleship.

We cannot expect a person who is completely at the mercy of their carnal nature to grasp the import of the danger of anger. It does no good to compare ourselves to another's position or supposed degree of sinfulness. There was a reason that Christ turned to the thief and said he would be with him in paradise. I think of the widow with her two mites; she gave all she had. All that she had was two mites, a very small sum, but it was all she had. It is similar to those who do not have all they blessings of the gospel, but they still give all they have.

I am agreeing with stormrider on this one. What sin is not an abomination to God?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 January 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Does one cast pearls before the swine? You seem to misunderstand the statement, but thats ok. Christ was only with those who were repentant, but rejected by the powers that be. If one did not wish to repent, why sit with a person who calls you to repentance. Christ would sit with anyone wishing to repent, and avoided those who did not wish to repent or felt no need of repentance, that did not only include the leaders of religious sects. I would suggest that it isn't religion that has changed the example of Christ in this case, it is instead the personal desires of the individual.

I take it by defending your original statement that you are trying to make the case that Christ would only sit with sinners that wanted to repent?? Do you have any examples in the scriptues where Christ acutally practiced this idea? Do you know, one single instance where Christ said, you are a sinner and you are unwilling to repent, so I will have nothing to do with you? Or is this just something you made up about Christ to make you feel better. Cause I am still thinking that, yeah, religion has changed the teachings of Christ.

There is nothing to defend, so your point is moot. If the sinner believes they have a right to the sin, then it doesn't quite make sense they would sit with someone offering repentance since what is offered is not needed. Wouldn't you agree?

Satan doesn't feel he sinned, he refused to give up what he wanted. You can use that as an instance if you would like.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 January 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Everyone is a sinner, but some sins were and are certainly more heinous than others. One could be an adulterer, a thief, a killer, and so on. One could be seeking forgiveness or presuming the sin you are committing is a right and therefore you have "nothing to be ashamed of".

Jeff, I know that some leaders have tried to quantify levels of sin. As I have gotten older I realize that it is meaningless to do so. First, as you have said we are all sinnners. Each of us, weather we know it or not or even acknowledge it, is on a path to return to our Father in Heaven. Sin, and its relative gravity, has more to do where we each are along that path. For some, we are just trying to get our carnal nature under control. For others, they are trying to love all people. For others, it is not to get angry. For each person the gravity of a sin is relative to where they are in their own progress and discipleship.

We cannot expect a person who is completely at the mercy of their carnal nature to grasp the import of the danger of anger. It does no good to compare ourselves to another's position or supposed degree of sinfulness. There was a reason that Christ turned to the thief and said he would be with him in paradise. I think of the widow with her two mites; she gave all she had. All that she had was two mites, a very small sum, but it was all she had. It is similar to those who do not have all they blessings of the gospel, but they still give all they have.

To a certain extent I agree with you, all sin is an abomination before God, however some sins cannot be forgiven, hence there certainly must be something of a heirarchy if you will, its extent is unknown to me so we should be safe to assume all sin is bad and deny us a presence before God, but some sins may be significantly worse. Better to avoid them all.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 January 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

The difference is today, many of those sinners would be the first to crucify Christ. After all they would spit out at Christ not to "judge them" and that their sin was a right. Christ viewed the sin as something to overcome, but today, sin is viewed by many sinners as a "work in progress". The difference is important and reflective on how society has changed. Many will say they aren't sinning today, whereas in the days of Christ they knew it was bad and were willing to admit to the sin. The sinners today do exactly what the establishment did in Christ's day. Not being part of the establishment does not free you from the same needed review of your life.

I think there were plenty of people during Christ's lifetime that thought they were not sinning. There is no difference from today. Often it was those that "thought" they were the most holy that lead the charge to crucify him. It was also the ones that thought they were the most holy that as you said "would spit out at Christ not to "judge them".The Romans who clearly were not free of sin had little interest in crucifying Christ. I think that you could make a much stronger case that it would be the religious fanatics of today who think their sins are small compared to others around them that would be the ones today wanting to crucify Christ. Nothing has changed.

I agree, in those days it was the Pharisees and Sadd.. et al who deemed a sacrifice or two was all they had to do. However the tables have been switched somewhat. And I realize you confuse things sometimes and presume that someone who is sinning is being judged because they sin which no one here has spoken of. What is being said is so many today, especially among some groups, do not feel what they are doing is a sin, so they will not repent, what they do is a "right", not a sin. They would have no need of Christ and if Christ called them to repentence, they would indeed seek to crucify Him, if no other way, through the media, or publically speak ill of Christ for daring to "judge them".

There are pharisees today to be sure, but there are many many more who have been convinced that what they do is not a sin and therefore they would indeed stone or seek to damage Christ in order to keep that busybody away from their peeps (suprisingly much like the Pharisees et al)

[3DOP]

You bring up some interesting points. So when Jesus was baptized, which church was He being baptized in? His church that He had not yet established or the Jewish church of his birth? Or was His baptism a commitment between Him and God and had no relevance to an organized religion. Is baptism entrance into an orgainized religion, or is it entrance into the Kingdom of God.

Thanks california boy.

St. John's baptism, according to his own testimony, was inferior to that which Jesus would institute. Most notably, his baptism did not confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, and post-resurrection believers were rebaptized (Ac. 19) according to the form given by Christ in Mt. 28.

I indeed baptize you in the water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.

---Mt. 3:11

It seems necessary, without minimizing the importance of the ministry of the Baptist as Christ's precursor, of grasping the superiority of the baptism which followed it. It seems implausible to me that John's baptism was the entrance into any organized religious community either for God's Son, or any of the others who received it.

As for your second question which asks whether baptism intiates into one thing (God's kingdom) or another (an organized religion). I would probably say that baptism is the initiation into both the kingdom of God and Christ's visible Church. But it seems probable that we have different ideas about what "the kingdom of God" means. The Scriptures emphasize in one place how the kingdom of God is interior (within you), but that does not of necessity exclude a visible manifestation of that kingdom. I would say that that is shown when we pray for God's kingdom to come, and His will to be done, on earth as it is in heaven. The kingdom of God cannot be limited to interior experience but is potentially manifested in the peaceable reign of Christ the King over every human institution.

Edited January 27, 2012 by 3DOP

[mercyngrace]

Everyone is a sinner, but some sins were and are certainly more heinous than others.

And interestingly enough, Christ's harshest rebukes were for those who considered themselves members of the ninety and nine.

One could be an adulterer, a thief, a killer, and so on.

Like David, who will be redeemed? Or the Jew crucified next to Christ who was promised reception in Paradise? Or like Moses who stood thereafter in the pesence of God?

It seems to me that you are parsing the law here when in reality the only standard that matters contains the phrase "no unclean thing".

One could be seeking forgiveness or presuming the sin you are committing is a right and therefore you have "nothing to be ashamed of".

If someone presumes their sin is a right, or in other words, is not a sin, then aren't they acting in ignorance? Aren't they acting much like Saul, who believed he was in the right persecuting Christians, right up until he came to know the Lord for himself?

PS I completely disagree with your statement that Christ only met with penitent people. Lots of people came to Christ for healing, food, and political reasons and He healed them, fed them, and tried to teach them the true nature of His kingdom. Like the woman at the well or Paul, it appears that most people did not approach Christ because they were seeking repentance rather proximity to Him made them aware that they needed to repent.

Edited January 28, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 January 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Everyone is a sinner, but some sins were and are certainly more heinous than others.

And interestingly enough, Christ's harshest rebukes were for those who considered themselves members of the ninety and nine.

Yes, the sin of hypocrisy or sinning with knowledge was/is one of the worst. So in fact a heirarchy of somesort did exist.

Quote

One could be an adulterer, a thief, a killer, and so on.

Like David, who will be redeemed? Or the Jew crucified next to Christ who was promised reception in Paradise? Or like Moses who stood thereafter in the pesence of God?

It seems to me that you are parsing the law here when in reality the only standard that matters contains the phrase "no unclean thing".

Wouldn't know, not sure if David was redeemed or not for murder.

Quote

One could be seeking forgiveness or presuming the sin you are committing is a right and therefore you have "nothing to be ashamed of".

If someone presumes their sin is a right, or in other words, is not a sin, then aren't they acting in ignorance? Aren't they acting much like Saul, who believed he was in the right persecuting Christians, right up until he came to know the Lord for himself?

PS I completely disagree with your statement that Christ only met with penitent people. Lots of people came to Christ for healing, food, and political reasons and He healed them, fed them, and tried to teach them the true nature of His kingdom. Like the woman at the well or Paul, it appears that most people did not approach Christ because they were seeking repentance rather proximity to Him made them aware that they needed to repent.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. If they see their sin as a right and do so innocently, it is one thing, but what if they know, and in their shame demand it as a right? A word game, cannot replace reality. People for the most part know what is or is not a sin, and as Christ followed all the commandments, so too do we attempt to do. We know when we are committing adultry, and to state that someone who has a right to commit it, or someone who feels they can commit something else, not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is their right to do it, is certainly different from the innocent that some may pretend to play at.

I perhaps should say that some in society would demand of Christ that me say it is not a sin. Otherwise they will crucify Him in some way.

Lots of people came to Christ for healing, food, and political reasons and He healed them, fed them, and tried to teach them the true nature of His kingdom. Like the woman at the well or Paul, it appears that most people did not approach Christ because they were seeking repentance rather proximity to Him made them aware that they needed to repent

I know of no instance where someone was with Christ who wasn't seeking His help, as you have illustrated. I cannot think of someone coming to Christ and saying "I will continue to kill, now heal me". If such an incident exists I would be glad to entertain it. If you do not plan to repent, why be with Christ? That is like saying you will not repent but will take up the mantle of Christ, it just doesn't quite work out that way. Now, could someone come unto Christ and then later be tempted to fall again? We can ask Judas I. about that one. But penance or the contrite heart and spirit make one teachable, if one does not wish to learn (like the Pharisees et al...) then why toss pearls before swine?

.

[mercyngrace]

Jeff,

The onus is upon you to substantiate your claim. You said:

Christ would sit with anyone wishing to repent, and avoided those who did not wish to repent or felt no need of repentance, that did not only include the leaders of religious sects.

I think California Boy asked you for an example from the scriptures and now I am asking for one. Board rules require that you provide a citaton for your claim or that you retract it.

I have provided examples to the contrary - Saul/Paul, Alma the Younger, the woman at the well. Then you have the masses who followed him to be fed and departed of their own will (as opposed to being sent way or avoided by the Savior) when they could not comprehend His Bread of Life sermon. How about the wealthy young prince who wanted to know what was required to gain eternal life and yet had no desire to repent or change his lifestyle? The Savior didn't avoid him either.

I'm not trying to be contrary here but if you are going to characterize Jesus Christ as one who walks away from those who most need Him, I want to see your evidence for that.

Edited January 28, 2012 by mercyngrace

[california boy]

There is nothing to defend, so your point is moot. If the sinner believes they have a right to the sin, then it doesn't quite make sense they would sit with someone offering repentance since what is offered is not needed. Wouldn't you agree?</p>

Satan doesn't feel he sinned, he refused to give up what he wanted. You can use that as an instance if you would like.

My post was about the actions of Christ, not the actions of sinners. I would guess that there would be plenty of sinners who would love to sit with Christ. I being one of them. Would you?

Evidently you forgot completely what you were responding to. Here is my post.

Many people see organized religion as a major source of hatred and bigotry in the world today. Churches sometimes preach a counterfeit for the message of Christ. For some reason Christianity has latched on the the catch phrase of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" to justify their actions against any who they don't agree with. It seems to grant them permission to justify this behavior that is no where found in the life of Christ. Certainly this election cycle has seen this rational used against the Mormon church for example. It is so often repeated that many have even come to believe that it is in the scriptures.

Of course Christ never made such a statement. He did however clearly set an example to us on how to threat those in sin. Through out His ministry, He would be found by the Pharisees breaking bread and hanging out with the prostitutes and publicans. Of course Christ does not accept the sins found in all of us, but a persons sins never affected how He respected and treated them. While the Pharisees condemned Christ for not shunning those living in sin, Christ didn’t seem to care. His answer to them was that He had come to heal the sick. Walking on the other side of the street of those in His need was never an option for Christ. The strongest words of Christ against others were directed to the Pharisees who had polluted the gospel and turned it into one of us verses the sinners.

Judging others and their sins has become a passion for many who claim to follow Christ, They spend more time working on other peoples sins so that in their own minds, their sins don't look so bad. This video may not have all the doctrine right. But instead of discussing some very good points this young man brings up, it is easier to pick apart what we don't like about the video.

You seem to believe that Christ would never sit with a sinner unless he was repenting. I disagree and think that is a further counterfeit distortion of the example Christ set. If you think otherwise, I am certainly willing to hear your scripture references. So far you have not provided any basis for your belief that Christ would not sit with a sinner unless he was repenting. If you now recant your assertion then yes, there is nothing to defend.

Edited January 28, 2012 by california boy

[california boy]

Thanks california boy.

St. John's baptism, according to his own testimony, was inferior to that which Jesus would institute. Most notably, his baptism did not confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, and post-resurrection believers were rebaptized (Ac. 19) according to the form given by Christ in Mt. 28.

---Mt. 3:11

It seems necessary, without minimizing the importance of the ministry of the Baptist as Christ's precursor, of grasping the superiority of the baptism which followed it. It seems implausible to me that John's baptism was the entrance into any organized religious community either for God's Son, or any of the others who received it.

As for your second question which asks whether baptism intiates into one thing (God's kingdom) or another (an organized religion). I would probably say that baptism is the initiation into both the kingdom of God and Christ's visible Church. But it seems probable that we have different ideas about what "the kingdom of God" means. The Scriptures emphasize in one place how the kingdom of God is interior (within you), but that does not of necessity exclude a visible manifestation of that kingdom. I would say that that is shown when we pray for God's kingdom to come, and His will to be done, on earth as it is in heaven. The kingdom of God cannot be limited to interior experience but is potentially manifested in the peaceable reign of Christ the King over every human institution.

Interesting post. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff,

The onus is upon you to substantiate your claim. You said:

Actually its not. I did prove it. Now you may not have liked the answer, but I cannot tell you to like something or not. Let me simplify it for you.

The one person who definately did not need or seek repentance was Satan, other than the temptations, can you perhaps tell me if he "hung out with Christ"?

I think California Boy asked you for an example from the scriptures and now I am asking for one. Board rules require that you provide a citaton for your claim or that you retract it.

I have provided examples to the contrary - Saul/Paul, Alma the Younger, the woman at the well. Then you have the masses who followed him to be fed and departed of their own will (as opposed to being sent way or avoided by the Savior) when they could not comprehend His Bread of Life sermon. How about the wealthy young prince who wanted to know what was required to gain eternal life and yet had no desire to repent or change his lifestyle? The Savior didn't avoid him either.

I'm not trying to be contrary here but if you are going to characterize Jesus Christ as one who walks away from those who most need Him, I want to see your evidence for that.

Your examples do not support your contention and your final statement is factually wrong as to what I was saying.....

Saul who would be Paul did not feel the need to repent because he sincerely and honestly thought he was doing the Lords work, when shown he was wrong, he did repent. Indeed the Lord called him to repentance. Now Paul did not "hang out" with Christ.

We don't know the state of mind for Alma the Younger who also did not sup with Christ.

Did Christ walk away from sinners who did not wish to repent? Did Christ walk away from the Pharisees and Sadducees et al....? Where they sinners who did not see the need to repent?

Is that a sufficient answer for you?

[mercyngrace]

Is that a sufficient answer for you?

No Jeff. You still have not provided any evidence that Christ avoids those who are not penitent. Your words again:

Christ would sit with anyone wishing to repent, and avoided those who did not wish to repent or felt no need of repentance, that did not only include the leaders of religious sects.

I know you don't like to be wrong. None of us do. But this was a misstatement and you should go ahead and own it rather than mischaracterizing our Lord as someone who does not go out after the lost. He characterizes Himself as the husband of a cheating wife who goes out after her, even as she is in the midst of adultery and brings her home, whispering to her lovingly in the wilderness. (Hosea 1-2) Paul describes Him as one who, in a characteristic act of intimate self-sacrifice (hardly avoidance), gave Himself for us while we were yet enemies. (Romans 5)

Our Savior does not avoid the unrepentant. He seeks them out.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 January 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

There is nothing to defend, so your point is moot. If the sinner believes they have a right to the sin, then it doesn't quite make sense they would sit with someone offering repentance since what is offered is not needed. Wouldn't you agree?</p>

Satan doesn't feel he sinned, he refused to give up what he wanted. You can use that as an instance if you would like.

My post was about the actions of Christ, not the actions of sinners. I would guess that there would be plenty of sinners who would love to sit with Christ. I being one of them. Would you?

Evidently you forgot completely what you were responding to. Here is my post.

Quote

Many people see organized religion as a major source of hatred and bigotry in the world today. Churches sometimes preach a counterfeit for the message of Christ. For some reason Christianity has latched on the the catch phrase of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" to justify their actions against any who they don't agree with. It seems to grant them permission to justify this behavior that is no where found in the life of Christ. Certainly this election cycle has seen this rational used against the Mormon church for example. It is so often repeated that many have even come to believe that it is in the scriptures.

Of course Christ never made such a statement. He did however clearly set an example to us on how to threat those in sin. Through out His ministry, He would be found by the Pharisees breaking bread and hanging out with the prostitutes and publicans. Of course Christ does not accept the sins found in all of us, but a persons sins never affected how He respected and treated them. While the Pharisees condemned Christ for not shunning those living in sin, Christ didn’t seem to care. His answer to them was that He had come to heal the sick. Walking on the other side of the street of those in His need was never an option for Christ. The strongest words of Christ against others were directed to the Pharisees who had polluted the gospel and turned it into one of us verses the sinners.

Judging others and their sins has become a passion for many who claim to follow Christ, They spend more time working on other peoples sins so that in their own minds, their sins don't look so bad. This video may not have all the doctrine right. But instead of discussing some very good points this young man brings up, it is easier to pick apart what we don't like about the video.

I understand your post and your defensivness, So your somewhat tart response is fine... but lets look at the issue more closely.

There is a big difference in the society that Christ existed in and ours. In Christ's time, the sinners knew they had done wrong, and felt rejected and condemned for all time. Christ never gave them absolution to sin, and called them to repentence. Today Christ would be rejected by the same people because he did not see what they did as an inherent right to do those things. They would have termed Christ evil and sinister and driven Him from among them, even as he told them that what they did was wrong and they should repent.

In some ways, we are very very different from that time. In other ways, we are very much the same, we still often shun, we still often condemn and disdain both sin and sinner.

Is there an issue with this?

I agreewith you that Christ never gave anyone absolution for their sins. Many sinners rejected Christ in his day and many embraced Him. Nothing is different here. What is clear is that Christ preached repeatedly about the evil of worrying about other peoples sins. (Does mote and beam come to mind or Matthew 7:1). Christ viewed sin as something an individual needs to work on. Churches today think it is a community project that because they preceive their sins are not as bad, they should be participating in others repentance process.

Again I ask, if Christ was aware

You seem to believe that Christ would never sit with a sinner unless he was repenting. I disagree and think that is a further counterfeit distortion of the example Christ set. If you think otherwise, I am certainly willing to hear your scripture references. So far you have not provided any basis for your belief that Christ would not sit with a sinner unless he was repenting. If you now recant your assertion then yes, there is nothing to defend.

No, Christ will sit with a sinner to call the sinner to repentance. Many sinners today would accuse Christ of judging them harshly and would stone him for not bowing to their rights. They do it all the time now to anyone who calls them to repentance. They would do it moreso to Christ because His voice is one that they cannot ignore. The distortion is from those who would seek to justify sin, and use the phrase "don't judge me" in order to undermine any charge of sin or wrongness. Christ would have told them they were wrong, in today's world, their distortion or relativism if you will, would not allow them to accept Christs word, they would indeed seek someway to destroy Him.

Would Christ sit with such people? They are today's Pharisees and Sadducees... et al who see nothing wrong with what they are doing, why? Their pride blinds any humility to learn. To quote....Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Now we don't know everyone Christ walked away from, the most prominent of course were the high and mighty Pharisees and Sadducees and others of the learned scribes, but that is merely societal position, would the beggar who rejects Christ also be of the same ilk? How about the merchant? Christ avoided no one, but Christ didn't hang with them either.... Take the rich man that another poster brought up...

He went away "grieved", well why didn't Christ go and explain more, wasn't he one of the lost sheep, didn't he need to know? Christ knew the young man would not repent. He let him go. What makes anyone think he would waste more time on those who refuse to repent, than upon those who would repent?

[Jeff K.]

No Jeff. You still have not provided any evidence that Christ avoids those who are not penitent. Your words again:

I know you don't like to be wrong. None of us do. But this was a misstatement and you should go ahead and own it rather than mischaracterizing our Lord as someone who does not go out after the lost. He characterizes Himself as the husband of a cheating wife who goes out after her, even as she is in the midst of adultery and brings her home, whispering to her lovingly in the wilderness. (Hosea 1-2) Paul describes Him as one who, in a characteristic act of intimate self-sacrifice (hardly avoidance), gave Himself for us while we were yet enemies. (Romans 5)

Our Savior does not avoid the unrepentant. He seeks them out.

Look, I know its a personal pride thing for you, but no I disagree and I have shown it, sorry your point is not correct.

My question to you again, in case you missed it.

Did Christ walk away from sinners who did not wish to repent? Did Christ walk away from the Pharisees and Sadducees et al....? Where they sinners who did not see the need to repent?