Is calling Beanieboy a . . .

[kmoney]

He would have. If you read the rest of the Bible it is impossible to not know. Jesus was living under the Mosaic law. A law given by Him, for He is God. He would support the adherence to that law.


Okay, you're wrong. Consider yourself corrected.

Jesus rebuked anyone who was so proud as to think they were not in need of Him.

Here's something to think about: The theif on the cross who asked Jesus to remember him was welcomed into paradise. The thief who cursed Him was not. The thief that was repentant rebuked the one who wasn't.

And I don't suggest resorting to name-calling right away. Only when the wicked persist in arrogance and selfishness. I know some homosexuals that I wouldn't call faggot, because they are humble, and not proud of their wickedness. They seek God in repentance, knowing that He did not create them to be that way.


What about when He basically called the Syro-Phoniecian woman a dog?:think:

Here's something to think about: The theif on the cross who asked Jesus to remember him was welcomed into paradise. The thief who cursed Him was not. The thief that was repentant rebuked the one who wasn't.

What rebuke did Jesus give? what name did he call the thief who didn't repent?

And I don't suggest resorting to name-calling right away. Only when the wicked persist in arrogance and selfishness. I know some homosexuals that I wouldn't call faggot, because they are humble, and not proud of their wickedness. They seek God in repentance, knowing that He did not create them to be that way.

I'm glad to hear that. I still say that the term "faggot" is never productive. There are other ways to rebuke them than that term.

What about when He basically called the Syro-Phoniecian woman a dog?:

Thank you for pointing that out. I forgot about that encounter. I will go back and read it.

Jesus was living under the Mosaic law. A law given by Him, for He is God. He would support the adherence to that law.

You may be right. Do you think that Jesus would want that law reinstated today? and have adulterers exucuted? Did Jesus ever talk about his desire to have the Mosaic Law established again?

Kevin

 

[Lighthouse]

yeah, I was just being very technical and splitting hairs. I agree that someone wouldn't commit the act unless they wanted to. BUT, I was just trying to point out that I believe it is possible for a heterosexual to commit a homosexual act while not being a homosexual. Like I said, I was just being technical.

How could a heterosexual commit such an act, unless he was forced, or tricked by a tranny? And if you're going to argue bisexuality, I must let you know that they are perceived to be homosexuals as well.

If it is simply a physical attraction than no, but if he lusted and thought about it than yes. What does Jesus say? He says that if you lust after her than you are guilty of adultery

Kevin

Yes He does. But that wasn't the point.

 

[Lighthouse]

What rebuke did Jesus give? what name did he call the thief who didn't repent?

In that instance He did not. But neither did He admonish the thief who did rebuke. In fact, He told him he would be in paradise with Him.

I'm glad to hear that. I still say that the term "faggot" is never productive. There are other ways to rebuke them than that term.

I've seen it work.

Thank you for pointing that out. I forgot about that encounter. I will go back and read it.

:thumb:

You may be right. Do you think that Jesus would want that law reinstated today? and have adulterers exucuted? Did Jesus ever talk about his desire to have the Mosaic Law established again?

Kevin

Jesus was under the Mosaic Law. It was still in effect when He walked the earth. The only impediment was the Roman government. And that changed not too long after Jesus' death, and the Romans allowed the Jews to practice their civil and criminal laws again. But, as it stands, Jesus had no reason to speak of a reinstallment of the Mosaic Law, because it had never been uninstated [is that a word?].

 

[kmoney]

In that instance He did not. But neither did He admonish the thief who did rebuke. In fact, He told him he would be in paradise with Him.


I've seen it work.


:thumb:


Jesus was under the Mosaic Law. It was still in effect when He walked the earth. The only impediment was the Roman government. And that changed not too long after Jesus' death, and the Romans allowed the Jews to practice their civil and criminal laws again. But, as it stands, Jesus had no reason to speak of a reinstallment of the Mosaic Law, because it had never been uninstated [is that a word?].

In that instance He did not. But neither did He admonish the thief who did rebuke. In fact, He told him he would be in paradise with Him.

The fact that Jesus said he would see the one thief in paradise had nothing to do with him rebuking the other thief. And this is what the the rebuke was....

Luk 23:40 "But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"
Luk 23:41 "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss."

There is no name-calling in this at all. I am not saying that rebuking homosexuals is always a bad thing. I'm just questioning the way in which you do it.

I've seen it work.

Well I am glad it worked, but I still don't recommend it, in any situation.

"Is that a word"? I think it is.

And as far as Jesus supporting the death of the adulterer. Again, you may be right, but I'm not ready to completely believe that yet. You certainly have me thinking though.

Kevin

 

[Agape4Robin]

:Brandon: That is the problem with literal reading of scripture.......

Jesus didn't call the Syro-Phoenician woman a dog. It was a metaphor that was meant to represent the jews and the gentiles.

Hermeneutics........its an integral part of bible study. :thumb:

 

[kmoney]

:Brandon: That is the problem with literal reading of scripture.......

Jesus didn't call the Syro-Phoenician woman a dog. It was a metaphor that was meant to represent the jews and the gentiles.

Hermeneutics........its an integral part of bible study. :thumb:

I thought that may have had something to do with why Jesus called her a dog, but I wanted to read it first before I responded. I hadn't had the chance to do it yet. Looks like you beat me to it.

Kevin

 

[Agape4Robin]

I thought that may have had something to do with why Jesus called her a dog, but I wanted to read it first before I responded. I hadn't had the chance to do it yet. Looks like you beat me to it.

Kevin

Nothing gets my goat more than Lighthouse's "literal" reading and understanding of scripture! I had to respond!
He is the perfect example of how some christians take verses out of context to support their unsound doctrine.
:sozo2:

 

[Lighthouse]

The fact that Jesus said he would see the one thief in paradise had nothing to do with him rebuking the other thief. And this is what the the rebuke was....

Luk 23:40 "But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?"
Luk 23:41 "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss."

There is no name-calling in this at all. I am not saying that rebuking homosexuals is always a bad thing. I'm just questioning the way in which you do it.

That doesn't mean names were never used. Many of God's people used names in the rebuking and mocking of the godless. Look at Elijah and the prophets of Baal.

Well I am glad it worked, but I still don't recommend it, in any situation.

If someone is soemthing it is not wrong to call them what they are. Especially if it works to show them what they are.

"Is that a word"? I think it is.

Okay.

And as far as Jesus supporting the death of the adulterer. Again, you may be right, but I'm not ready to completely believe that yet. You certainly have me thinking though.

Kevin

If you read the story you can see why He did not support it under the circumstances. And to say He would not have supported it if done legally is an argument from silence at best.

Of course, you may be able to find evidence of Him supporting legal executions.

 

[Lighthouse]

:Brandon: That is the problem with literal reading of scripture.......

Jesus didn't call the Syro-Phoenician woman a dog. It was a metaphor that was meant to represent the jews and the gentiles.

Hermeneutics........its an integral part of bible study. :thumb:

"Dog," was a typical 'name' used by the Jews to refer to Gentiles, in those days. It's even in the religious writings they have, and those writings are around today.

 

[Lighthouse]

Nothing gets my goat more than Lighthouse's "literal" reading and understanding of scripture! I had to respond!
He is the perfect example of how some christians take verses out of context to support their unsound doctrine.
:sozo2:

Care to back up your accusation?

 

[Agape4Robin]

"Dog," was a typical 'name' used by the Jews to refer to Gentiles, in those days. It's even in the religious writings they have, and those writings are around today.

Then why didn't Jesus call all Gentiles, dogs? I mean if it was so typical..... :think:

I know why He didn't...........it was a metaphor!!!!!!!!!

 

[Agape4Robin]

Care to back up your accusation?

No problem.

In using the Syro-Phoenecian woman's interaction with Jesus, you intended to prove your point about calling people names to rebuke them in order that they would repent.

Problem is, this "rebuke" was in fact a metaphor. Not meant or used for the purpose to demean or humiliate the woman. In fact, the woman went before Jesus and worshipped Him. It was her daughter that had a demon and she begged first the disciples and when they wouldn't help her, she went directly to Jesus and worshipped Him. This metaphor was used by Jesus to teach His disciples a lesson. Jesus was not prejudiced toward this woman because of her race, but the disciples were.......that was the lesson.

Like I said, :Brandon: hermaneutics.........

 

[Lighthouse]

Then why didn't Jesus call all Gentiles, dogs? I mean if it was so typical..... :think:

I know why He didn't...........it was a metaphor!!!!!!!!!

Not the point. And, if your next post is correct, it wasn't a metaphor either.

 

[Lighthouse]

No problem.

In using the Syro-Phoenecian woman's interaction with Jesus, you intended to prove your point about calling people names to rebuke them in order that they would repent.

You're lying again. There is no indication that He was rebuking this woman for sin, although it could be read that He was rebuking her for coming to Him when He had not come for the Gentiles. But that would lead to the question of why He spoke to the Samaritan woman. But Jesus was not attempting to lead her to repentance for anything, and noone can argue that He was, from Scripture.

Problem is, this "rebuke" was in fact a metaphor. Not meant or used for the purpose to demean or humiliate the woman. In fact, the woman went before Jesus and worshipped Him. It was her daughter that had a demon and she begged first the disciples and when they wouldn't help her, she went directly to Jesus and worshipped Him. This metaphor was used by Jesus to teach His disciples a lesson. Jesus was not prejudiced toward this woman because of her race, but the disciples were.......that was the lesson.

Why do you insist on lying about me, Robin?

The woman was already obviously humble, so Jesus had no reason to humble her. That is clear. Therefore He had no reason to rebuke her, except that He had come for Israel.

And If Jesus was teaching his disciples a lesson, so that they would lose their racist beliefs, then it was not a metaphor.:nono:

 

[aikido7]

Jesus is brought down a peg by a Gentile? And a woman at that?

An amazing story between the lines: Jesus makes a mistake, admits it and is graceful enough to learn from it.

 

[Agape4Robin]

You're lying again. There is no indication that He was rebuking this woman for sin, although it could be read that He was rebuking her for coming to Him when He had not come for the Gentiles. But that would lead to the question of why He spoke to the Samaritan woman. But Jesus was not attempting to lead her to repentance for anything, and noone can argue that He was, from Scripture.

What am I lying about?
I did not say that He was rebuking the woman for sin, but that it is your MO.
I did not say that He was attempting to lead her to repentance either. :nono: Maybe if you had read what I actually said, rather than what you presume I said, perhaps you wouldn't argue so much..... :think:

Why do you insist on lying about me, Robin?

So you don't use name calling to demean people?

The woman was already obviously humble, so Jesus had no reason to humble her. That is clear. Therefore He had no reason to rebuke her, except that He had come for Israel.

Humble? Yes. The woman was obviously humble before Jesus, as she demonstrated by worshipping Him. Even though she was not a Jew, perhaps she saw or had heard of this one others were calling Messiah and who had healed others (maybe Jew or not) and she was persistent in her new found faith in this Jesus enough that she knew He would heal her daughter, if He desired......and so she cried out to Him. Even when He pointed out to her that He had come to the House of Israel, she also knew that faith in Him was the key. For even the dogs would eat whatever fell from the master's table. This bit of wisdom revealed her faith to Jesus and He healed the woman's daughter.
I'm not sure about this but, perhaps she had heard about the Centurion's servant? :think:

And If Jesus was teaching his disciples a lesson, so that they would lose their racist beliefs, then it was not a metaphor.:nono:

Jesus used many opportunities to teach His disciples....many times through parables and other means. Remember, He was grooming them to advance His Kingdom.

 

[Agape4Robin]

Jesus is brought down a peg by a Gentile? And a woman at that?

An amazing story between the lines: Jesus makes a mistake, admits it and is graceful enough to learn from it.

You should really quit smoking crack before you attempt to read scripture..............

 

[Lighthouse]

What am I lying about?
I did not say that He was rebuking the woman for sin, but that it is your MO.
I did not say that He was attempting to lead her to repentance either. :nono: Maybe if you had read what I actually said, rather than what you presume I said, perhaps you wouldn't argue so much..... :think:

You said that I was using that story to justify name calling for the purpose of rebuke. That is a lie.

So you don't use name calling to demean people?

I never said that.

Humble? Yes. The woman was obviously humble before Jesus, as she demonstrated by worshipping Him. Even though she was not a Jew, perhaps she saw or had heard of this one others were calling Messiah and who had healed others (maybe Jew or not) and she was persistent in her new found faith in this Jesus enough that she knew He would heal her daughter, if He desired......and so she cried out to Him. Even when He pointed out to her that He had come to the House of Israel, she also knew that faith in Him was the key. For even the dogs would eat whatever fell from the master's table. This bit of wisdom revealed her faith to Jesus and He healed the woman's daughter.
I'm not sure about this but, perhaps she had heard about the Centurion's servant? :think:

Are you sure that story came before this one?

Jesus used many opportunities to teach His disciples....many times through parables and other means. Remember, He was grooming them to advance His Kingdom.

And? If He was teaching that their racism was wrong, then it was not a metaphor.

 

[JoyfulRook]

You should really quit smoking crack before you attempt to read scripture..............

:darwinsm:

 

[anna]

As of yet, I have found no reason to.
I pray for God to reveal himself, and yet, I have been led to Buddhism.
And I suppose this board. I have been forced to back up my statements with the bible more than any other, and show contradictions of behavior from those who call themselves Christians.

But I see the whole of life a journey to better understand God. It always has been, even as a child, and is always where I am led back to.

Hi beanie,

I hope you don't give up on trying to understand God even if you have to suffer. If I can learn to be less prideful then I KNOW that anybody can change if they really want to, but it will probably be a long road for you(not that my road has ended..I have a long way to go too with my own issues).Hold on and don't give up trying. :angel:


anna