God?

[Irvinecommuter]

Just pastors... or even Christians in general.

So then if they are meant for believers... seems a little bit like "preaching to the choir" (to use a topical phrase).

There are points in your posts that I am not totally in sync with with but just by our previous discussions, I don't think pointing them out will result in anything other than we agree to disagree.

As you can tell, I seem to be more aligned with IC's stance which seems to be at odds with your own (notice the non-use of "right" or "wrong").

I agree re non-believers.  It never made sense to me why pastors/Christians preach to non-believers by citing to the Bible.  It's an appeal to authority that is unpersuasive. 

I get the allure but most Christians are way into their own bubbles to relate to non-believers.

Well then now you know all my posts were for Christians or believers like yourself like most TI members (at least that's what they said). I do believe you can certainly use the Bible verses to non-believers, but that is something we can discuss later since the way I was doing here was meant for believers who all have read those verses before.

So are you saying I'm in my own bubble and can't really relate to non-believers?

I make no judgments as to you cause I do not know you personally other than what you post here.  I was speaking as to Christians and the American Christian movement as a whole.

Seems like you're more judgmental toward American Christianity than how you were accusing me of being judgmental. lol.
I don't know why you are so turned off by pastors preach with Bible verses. Isn't the Bible the main source of their message? Are you looking for more personal stories and experiences? I guess you saw some pastors looking like they were being authoritative with verses and whatnot, but I think if they genuinely site and speak to preach the gospel, I don't see what the problem is. Again, maybe you saw someone being hypocritical, but as much as you personally don't know me, are you sure you can say you know them?

I'm not being judgmental...I am saying that it's ineffective and counter-intuitive .  If the Bible has any level of authoritative sway on a non-believer, they would already be interested. 

Before you try and convince someone of a particular point, you need to agree on some basically ground rules, background facts, and parameters.  You can't mandate that the other person agree with your rules and facts before starting a discussion or debate.  That person is just going to walk away.  Worse yet, it just becomes "preachy" and people are adversely affected by it. 

It is why I mentioned that Jesus sometimes just hung out with people and affected them by His mere presence.  He did not start quoting Old Testament to the masses...He was with them and listened to their plight and addressed their concerns.  He took the opposite approach with the Pharisees because they were so beholden to the law and the texts.

 

[Mety]

Just pastors... or even Christians in general.

So then if they are meant for believers... seems a little bit like "preaching to the choir" (to use a topical phrase).

There are points in your posts that I am not totally in sync with with but just by our previous discussions, I don't think pointing them out will result in anything other than we agree to disagree.

As you can tell, I seem to be more aligned with IC's stance which seems to be at odds with your own (notice the non-use of "right" or "wrong").

I agree re non-believers.  It never made sense to me why pastors/Christians preach to non-believers by citing to the Bible.  It's an appeal to authority that is unpersuasive. 

I get the allure but most Christians are way into their own bubbles to relate to non-believers.

Well then now you know all my posts were for Christians or believers like yourself like most TI members (at least that's what they said). I do believe you can certainly use the Bible verses to non-believers, but that is something we can discuss later since the way I was doing here was meant for believers who all have read those verses before.

So are you saying I'm in my own bubble and can't really relate to non-believers?

I make no judgments as to you cause I do not know you personally other than what you post here.  I was speaking as to Christians and the American Christian movement as a whole.

Seems like you're more judgmental toward American Christianity than how you were accusing me of being judgmental. lol.
I don't know why you are so turned off by pastors preach with Bible verses. Isn't the Bible the main source of their message? Are you looking for more personal stories and experiences? I guess you saw some pastors looking like they were being authoritative with verses and whatnot, but I think if they genuinely site and speak to preach the gospel, I don't see what the problem is. Again, maybe you saw someone being hypocritical, but as much as you personally don't know me, are you sure you can say you know them?

I'm not being judgmental...I am saying that it's ineffective and counter-intuitive .  If the Bible has any level of authoritative sway on a non-believer, they would already be interested. 

Before you try and convince someone of a particular point, you need to agree on some basically ground rules, background facts, and parameters.  You can't mandate that the other person agree with your rules and facts before starting a discussion or debate.  That person is just going to walk away.  Worse yet, it just becomes "preachy" and people are adversely affected by it. 

It is why I mentioned that Jesus sometimes just hung out with people and affected them by His mere presence.  He did not start quoting Old Testament to the masses...He was with them and listened to their plight and addressed their concerns.  He took the opposite approach with the Pharisees because they were so beholden to the law and the texts.

I agree with your point. If a pastor or a Christian out of no where just says Bible verses to a non-believer and forces them to believe in, that most likely won't happen. That non-believer most likely will walk away like you said. Although I do think God still can use that circumstance and let it be a point where that non-believer can think back on what that pastor was saying and so on (think of John the Baptist), I get your point.

However, do you think Jesus was really trying to be effective and intuitive to get more crowd? You say He was just there to hang out with people. But don't you agree that every word out of His mouth was the very living word of God? He Himself was the living testimony of the OT and the new covenant. While I can imagine He did just hang out with people, I can't really find such verses in the NT but I find so many if not all the time He grabbed each moment and opportunity to speak the truth, to preach the gospel, to tell them about the Kingdom. If you find a verse where Jesus was just there to hang out, please let me know. Maybe He did, I don't know. I just can't find such verses.

Pharisees or religious leaders' approach was not really that much of teaching the OT either. If you really study deeply about how the religious leaders at that time were teaching people, they were teaching people with 'ambiguity.' They would go like this - "Such and such Rabbi translate this scripture as this while some other Rabbi says that so you, lower class, won't be able to understand what it is, but it for sure says you need to submit to our authority and pay your money." Out of OT, they made their own regulations (which some are still practiced today) to press the poor and common to get money from for themselves. They were using God's holy words to get what they wanted which was pretty much mammon. (Interestingly this is exactly how fake church or cults are doing to get more crowds and money out of them.) Jesus was condemning that and taught people 'correctly' and 'clearly' without any ambiguity of what OT really was or what God really meant for His people. That was why people saw Him as so much more authoritative than the Pharisees as repeatedly stated in NT.

Another thing to note is that I think you and I both would agree it's not really our humanly work for someone to believe in Jesus. It really has to be the work of the Holy Spirit, right? Then why would we worry so much about being effective and intuitive? Isn't it God's work to convert someone once we proclaim the gospel? To proclaim the gospel I think you do need to site from the Bible verses. So I don't really get what your concern is. You say if a Christian is being preachy, then it's a turn off. Well, I may be seeing something totally different than what you are seeing, but I see less and less churches are preaching the word of God and do other worldly secular things to attract more crowd. I'm not against it, but I'm against it if they think that's the way to win souls to Christ. They might win them for their church attendance, but to really have them believe in Jesus, I think the Word has to be preached to sow the seed.

 

[Mety]

Just pastors... or even Christians in general.

So then if they are meant for believers... seems a little bit like "preaching to the choir" (to use a topical phrase).

There are points in your posts that I am not totally in sync with with but just by our previous discussions, I don't think pointing them out will result in anything other than we agree to disagree.

As you can tell, I seem to be more aligned with IC's stance which seems to be at odds with your own (notice the non-use of "right" or "wrong").

Let me ask you this before I say anything further.
Are you a Christian?

IHO, still haven't decided on it yet?

 

[Mety]

Just pastors... or even Christians in general.

So then if they are meant for believers... seems a little bit like "preaching to the choir" (to use a topical phrase).

There are points in your posts that I am not totally in sync with with but just by our previous discussions, I don't think pointing them out will result in anything other than we agree to disagree.

As you can tell, I seem to be more aligned with IC's stance which seems to be at odds with your own (notice the non-use of "right" or "wrong").

I agree re non-believers.  It never made sense to me why pastors/Christians preach to non-believers by citing to the Bible.  It's an appeal to authority that is unpersuasive. 

I get the allure but most Christians are way into their own bubbles to relate to non-believers.

Well then now you know all my posts were for Christians or believers like yourself like most TI members (at least that's what they said). I do believe you can certainly use the Bible verses to non-believers, but that is something we can discuss later since the way I was doing here was meant for believers who all have read those verses before.

So are you saying I'm in my own bubble and can't really relate to non-believers?

I make no judgments as to you cause I do not know you personally other than what you post here.  I was speaking as to Christians and the American Christian movement as a whole.

Seems like you're more judgmental toward American Christianity than how you were accusing me of being judgmental. lol.
I don't know why you are so turned off by pastors preach with Bible verses. Isn't the Bible the main source of their message? Are you looking for more personal stories and experiences? I guess you saw some pastors looking like they were being authoritative with verses and whatnot, but I think if they genuinely site and speak to preach the gospel, I don't see what the problem is. Again, maybe you saw someone being hypocritical, but as much as you personally don't know me, are you sure you can say you know them?

I'm not being judgmental...I am saying that it's ineffective and counter-intuitive .  If the Bible has any level of authoritative sway on a non-believer, they would already be interested. 

Before you try and convince someone of a particular point, you need to agree on some basically ground rules, background facts, and parameters.  You can't mandate that the other person agree with your rules and facts before starting a discussion or debate.  That person is just going to walk away.  Worse yet, it just becomes "preachy" and people are adversely affected by it. 

It is why I mentioned that Jesus sometimes just hung out with people and affected them by His mere presence.  He did not start quoting Old Testament to the masses...He was with them and listened to their plight and addressed their concerns.  He took the opposite approach with the Pharisees because they were so beholden to the law and the texts.

I agree with your point. If a pastor or a Christian out of no where just says Bible verses to a non-believer and forces them to believe in, that most likely won't happen. That non-believer most likely will walk away like you said. Although I do think God still can use that circumstance and let it be a point where that non-believer can think back on what that pastor was saying and so on (think of John the Baptist), I get your point.

However, do you think Jesus was really trying to be effective and intuitive to get more crowd? You say He was just there to hang out with people. But don't you agree that every word out of His mouth was the very living word of God? He Himself was the living testimony of the OT and the new covenant. While I can imagine He did just hang out with people, I can't really find such verses in the NT but I find so many if not all the time He grabbed each moment and opportunity to speak the truth, to preach the gospel, to tell them about the Kingdom. If you find a verse where Jesus was just there to hang out, please let me know. Maybe He did, I don't know. I just can't find such verses.

Pharisees or religious leaders' approach was not really that much of teaching the OT either. If you really study deeply about how the religious leaders at that time were teaching people, they were teaching people with 'ambiguity.' They would go like this - "Such and such Rabbi translate this scripture as this while some other Rabbi says that so you, lower class, won't be able to understand what it is, but it for sure says you need to submit to our authority and pay your money." Out of OT, they made their own regulations (which some are still practiced today) to press the poor and common to get money from for themselves. They were using God's holy words to get what they wanted which was pretty much mammon. (Interestingly this is exactly how fake church or cults are doing to get more crowds and money out of them.) Jesus was condemning that and taught people 'correctly' and 'clearly' without any ambiguity of what OT really was or what God really meant for His people. That was why people saw Him as so much more authoritative than the Pharisees as repeatedly stated in NT.

Another thing to note is that I think you and I both would agree it's not really our humanly work for someone to believe in Jesus. It really has to be the work of the Holy Spirit, right? Then why would we worry so much about being effective and intuitive? Isn't it God's work to convert someone once we proclaim the gospel? To proclaim the gospel I think you do need to site from the Bible verses. So I don't really get what your concern is. You say if a Christian is being preachy, then it's a turn off. Well, I may be seeing something totally different than what you are seeing, but I see less and less churches are preaching the word of God and do other worldly secular things to attract more crowd. I'm not against it, but I'm against it if they think that's the way to win souls to Christ. They might win them for their church attendance, but to really have them believe in Jesus, I think the Word has to be preached to sow the seed.

IC, Please do let me know if you find them.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Just pastors... or even Christians in general.

So then if they are meant for believers... seems a little bit like "preaching to the choir" (to use a topical phrase).

There are points in your posts that I am not totally in sync with with but just by our previous discussions, I don't think pointing them out will result in anything other than we agree to disagree.

As you can tell, I seem to be more aligned with IC's stance which seems to be at odds with your own (notice the non-use of "right" or "wrong").

Let me ask you this before I say anything further.
Are you a Christian?

IHO, still haven't decided on it yet?

Interesting question. Do my posts tell you otherwise?

Until you posted in this thread, I had no idea you were a Christian so I guess I could have asked you this question too.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

IC, Please do let me know if you find them.

Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector?s booth. ?Follow me,? Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi?s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: ?Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners??

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, ?It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.?

Mark 2:13-17

Jesus got to know the people and accepted them first and without conditions so that they would accept Him and His message. 

I believe that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is God but non-believers don't.  To tell them that they need to accept those concepts based upon my faith is illogical and unrealistic.

 

[Mety]

Just pastors... or even Christians in general.

So then if they are meant for believers... seems a little bit like "preaching to the choir" (to use a topical phrase).

There are points in your posts that I am not totally in sync with with but just by our previous discussions, I don't think pointing them out will result in anything other than we agree to disagree.

As you can tell, I seem to be more aligned with IC's stance which seems to be at odds with your own (notice the non-use of "right" or "wrong").

Let me ask you this before I say anything further.
Are you a Christian?

IHO, still haven't decided on it yet?

Interesting question. Do my posts tell you otherwise?

Until you posted in this thread, I had no idea you were a Christian so I guess I could have asked you this question too.

Well, I guess you do believe in God based on what you posted here, but I don't know if you believe in Jesus as the only Savior. Who knows? You might be Jewish or Catholic. You still have not provided the clear answer yet.

I didn't want to talk about God or anything religious in other threads just like anyone wouldn't bring up political stuff to RE threads. Since this thread is about God, then I will freely talk about God I believe in. I try to stay to topic in each thread, of course with some jokes and entertainment like Delano and whatnot. 

 

[Mety]

IC, Please do let me know if you find them.

Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector?s booth. ?Follow me,? Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi?s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: ?Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners??

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, ?It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.?

Mark 2:13-17

Jesus got to know the people and accepted them first and without conditions so that they would accept Him and His message. 

I believe that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is God but non-believers don't.  To tell them that they need to accept those concepts based upon my faith is illogical and unrealistic.

Thanks for responding.

I don't think the message there is about Jesus hanging out with "sinners." Of course He ate and drank with people, but I don't think it was just for the sake of "hanging out." He was there to accept and call those sinners into His Kingdom as you said. To accept and believe Him as a Savior is up to them and their heart to decide, but unfortunately many did/do not accept that as Jesus Himself pointed that out.

Also you need to understand that in those days, there was no internet and iphones and so many cultures and things to do like today.  Back in the day especially in the land of where Jews resided, they pretty much lived with the culture of God's words only. Talking about His words and worshiping Him were the majority of things people did. Since the religious leaders were not teaching the people correctly and only saw them as lower class and sick/diseased people, Jesus had to come and teach them correctly, accepting those so-called "sinner" and "sick." Jews taught with ambiguity, but Jesus taught very clearly until He started teaching with parables.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Thanks for responding.

I don't think the message there is about Jesus hanging out with "sinners." Of course He ate and drank with people, but I don't think it was just for the sake of "hanging out." He was there to accept and call those sinners into His Kingdom as you said. To accept and believe Him as a Savior is up to them and their heart to decide, but unfortunately many did/do not accept that as Jesus Himself pointed that out.

Also you need to understand that in those days, there was no internet and iphones and so many cultures and things to do like today.  Back in the day especially in the land of where Jews resided, they pretty much lived with the culture of God's words only. Talking about His words and worshiping Him were the majority of things people did. Since the religious leaders were not teaching the people correctly and only saw them as lower class and sick/diseased people, Jesus had to come and teach them correctly, accepting those so-called "sinner" and "sick." Jews taught with ambiguity, but Jesus taught very clearly until He started teaching with parables.

Sorry...what exactly are you trying to convey?  I am not even sure what you are pointing out or disagreeing with.  There is absolutely nothing wrong about "hanging out"...it's exactly what Jesus did in that verse.  He went there and hung out with the sinners. The mere fact that Jesus elected to even associate with them on any level is an incredible break from the norm.    Jesus modeled the concept of accepting people as they are, without conditions or lecturing.

I also don't know why you feel like I don't understand historical context.  I would disagree with you that people were so how more religious in Jesus' time especially since Israel was under Roman control. 

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@Mety:

Maybe you should re-read the thread from the beginning... I just did and it's weird because I don't think I have found a resolution to this one issue that being a Christian weighs on me:

What happens to those who do not believe in Jesus but do believe in God?

One of the cornerstones of Christianity is that the only way to salvation is through belief in Jesus (I paraphrase) yet it is difficult for me to understand that the billions of other people who don't believe in Jesus will not be saved.

I actually feel that is un-Christian-like to think that way, which is the conundrum I have struggled with throughout this thread.

Outside of Christianity, the biggest religions don't believe in Jesus, whether by choice, upbringing, culture etc... so will they all be doomed to be without God for eternity? And this isn't even counting those who do not believe in God.

 

[Mety]

Thanks for responding.

I don't think the message there is about Jesus hanging out with "sinners." Of course He ate and drank with people, but I don't think it was just for the sake of "hanging out." He was there to accept and call those sinners into His Kingdom as you said. To accept and believe Him as a Savior is up to them and their heart to decide, but unfortunately many did/do not accept that as Jesus Himself pointed that out.

Also you need to understand that in those days, there was no internet and iphones and so many cultures and things to do like today.  Back in the day especially in the land of where Jews resided, they pretty much lived with the culture of God's words only. Talking about His words and worshiping Him were the majority of things people did. Since the religious leaders were not teaching the people correctly and only saw them as lower class and sick/diseased people, Jesus had to come and teach them correctly, accepting those so-called "sinner" and "sick." Jews taught with ambiguity, but Jesus taught very clearly until He started teaching with parables.

Sorry...what exactly are you trying to convey?  I am not even sure what you are pointing out or disagreeing with.  There is absolutely nothing wrong about "hanging out"...it's exactly what Jesus did in that verse.  He went there and hung out with the sinners. The mere fact that Jesus elected to even associate with them on any level is an incredible break from the norm.    Jesus modeled the concept of accepting people as they are, without conditions or lecturing.

I also don't know why you feel like I don't understand historical context.  I would disagree with you that people were so how more religious in Jesus' time especially since Israel was under Roman control.

The point of the message the verses you quoted is Jesus calls and accepts anyone even people consider as sinners or sick.
Hanging out part is really not what these verse are saying though I agree He did eat and drink with people, but that's not the focus and I know you would know as well.

 

[Mety]

@Mety:

Maybe you should re-read the thread from the beginning... I just did and it's weird because I don't think I have found a resolution to this one issue that being a Christian weighs on me:

What happens to those who do not believe in Jesus but do believe in God?

One of the cornerstones of Christianity is that the only way to salvation is through belief in Jesus (I paraphrase) yet it is difficult for me to understand that the billions of other people who don't believe in Jesus will not be saved.

I actually feel that is un-Christian-like to think that way, which is the conundrum I have struggled with throughout this thread.

Outside of Christianity, the biggest religions don't believe in Jesus, whether by choice, upbringing, culture etc... so will they all be doomed to be without God for eternity? And this isn't even counting those who do not believe in God.

So you believe in God, but accepting Jesus as the only Savior is to be determined. Am I correct?
I will answer your other questions once you answer this.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

@Mety:

Maybe you should re-read the thread from the beginning... I just did and it's weird because I don't think I have found a resolution to this one issue that being a Christian weighs on me:

What happens to those who do not believe in Jesus but do believe in God?

One of the cornerstones of Christianity is that the only way to salvation is through belief in Jesus (I paraphrase) yet it is difficult for me to understand that the billions of other people who don't believe in Jesus will not be saved.

I actually feel that is un-Christian-like to think that way, which is the conundrum I have struggled with throughout this thread.

Outside of Christianity, the biggest religions don't believe in Jesus, whether by choice, upbringing, culture etc... so will they all be doomed to be without God for eternity? And this isn't even counting those who do not believe in God.

Yes...it does seem somewhat cruel but what is the definition of doom?  If humanity is tainted by sin and unacceptable to God/Heaven...what else can be done? 

If a group of people were born with a condition that has 100% mortality rate in 5 years and 100% contagious...wouldn't you have to quarantine those people away from the healthy?  And if those people could be cured by a single dose of medicine but than rather stay sick than drink it...what else can be done?

 

[eyephone]

Mety:
Maybe you that you are talking to is Jewish or something. (guessing)

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@Mety:

Maybe you should re-read the thread from the beginning... I just did and it's weird because I don't think I have found a resolution to this one issue that being a Christian weighs on me:

What happens to those who do not believe in Jesus but do believe in God?

One of the cornerstones of Christianity is that the only way to salvation is through belief in Jesus (I paraphrase) yet it is difficult for me to understand that the billions of other people who don't believe in Jesus will not be saved.

I actually feel that is un-Christian-like to think that way, which is the conundrum I have struggled with throughout this thread.

Outside of Christianity, the biggest religions don't believe in Jesus, whether by choice, upbringing, culture etc... so will they all be doomed to be without God for eternity? And this isn't even counting those who do not believe in God.

So you believe in God, but accepting Jesus as the only Savior is to be determined. Am I correct?
I will answer your other questions once you answer this.

For Christians, accepting Jesus as the one path to salvation is tantamount to being called a Christian. I cannot be otherwise.

However, I wonder what are God's plans for those who do not.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

For Christians, accepting Jesus as the one path to salvation is tantamount to being called a Christian. I cannot be otherwise.

However, I wonder what are God's plans for those who do not.

Same as the angels who rebelled against him...separation from God.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

For Christians, accepting Jesus as the one path to salvation is tantamount to being called a Christian. I cannot be otherwise.

However, I wonder what are God's plans for those who do not.

Same as the angels who rebelled against him...separation from God.

And maybe, just how Jesus loved everyone, it comforts me to think that in the end, God will accept everyone too.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Thanks for responding.

I don't think the message there is about Jesus hanging out with "sinners." Of course He ate and drank with people, but I don't think it was just for the sake of "hanging out." He was there to accept and call those sinners into His Kingdom as you said. To accept and believe Him as a Savior is up to them and their heart to decide, but unfortunately many did/do not accept that as Jesus Himself pointed that out.

Also you need to understand that in those days, there was no internet and iphones and so many cultures and things to do like today.  Back in the day especially in the land of where Jews resided, they pretty much lived with the culture of God's words only. Talking about His words and worshiping Him were the majority of things people did. Since the religious leaders were not teaching the people correctly and only saw them as lower class and sick/diseased people, Jesus had to come and teach them correctly, accepting those so-called "sinner" and "sick." Jews taught with ambiguity, but Jesus taught very clearly until He started teaching with parables.

Sorry...what exactly are you trying to convey?  I am not even sure what you are pointing out or disagreeing with.  There is absolutely nothing wrong about "hanging out"...it's exactly what Jesus did in that verse.  He went there and hung out with the sinners. The mere fact that Jesus elected to even associate with them on any level is an incredible break from the norm.    Jesus modeled the concept of accepting people as they are, without conditions or lecturing.

I also don't know why you feel like I don't understand historical context.  I would disagree with you that people were so how more religious in Jesus' time especially since Israel was under Roman control.

The point of the message the verses you quoted is Jesus calls and accepts anyone even people consider as sinners or sick.
Hanging out part is really not what these verse are saying though I agree He did eat and drink with people, but that's not the focus and I know you would know as well.

No...it is exactly the point of the verse.  It is that a Christian should be with the sinners and accept them for who they are so that one can bring the Gospel to them. 

If Jesus just started preaching to them about how they are sinners...they would probably just walk away.  Instead, Jesus stopped and shared a meal with them, which if you are focusing on historical and social context is an extremely important (perhaps the most important) gesture.

 

[Mety]

Thanks for responding.

I don't think the message there is about Jesus hanging out with "sinners." Of course He ate and drank with people, but I don't think it was just for the sake of "hanging out." He was there to accept and call those sinners into His Kingdom as you said. To accept and believe Him as a Savior is up to them and their heart to decide, but unfortunately many did/do not accept that as Jesus Himself pointed that out.

Also you need to understand that in those days, there was no internet and iphones and so many cultures and things to do like today.  Back in the day especially in the land of where Jews resided, they pretty much lived with the culture of God's words only. Talking about His words and worshiping Him were the majority of things people did. Since the religious leaders were not teaching the people correctly and only saw them as lower class and sick/diseased people, Jesus had to come and teach them correctly, accepting those so-called "sinner" and "sick." Jews taught with ambiguity, but Jesus taught very clearly until He started teaching with parables.

Sorry...what exactly are you trying to convey?  I am not even sure what you are pointing out or disagreeing with.  There is absolutely nothing wrong about "hanging out"...it's exactly what Jesus did in that verse.  He went there and hung out with the sinners. The mere fact that Jesus elected to even associate with them on any level is an incredible break from the norm.    Jesus modeled the concept of accepting people as they are, without conditions or lecturing.

I also don't know why you feel like I don't understand historical context.  I would disagree with you that people were so how more religious in Jesus' time especially since Israel was under Roman control.

The point of the message the verses you quoted is Jesus calls and accepts anyone even people consider as sinners or sick.
Hanging out part is really not what these verse are saying though I agree He did eat and drink with people, but that's not the focus and I know you would know as well.

No...it is exactly the point of the verse.  It is that a Christian should be with the sinners and accept them for who they are so that one can bring the Gospel to them. 

If Jesus just started preaching to them about how they are sinners...they would probably just walk away.  Instead, Jesus stopped and shared a meal with them, which if you are focusing on historical and social context is an extremely important (perhaps the most important) gesture.

Haha I love when you say just "No" like that. It almost happens every time. LOL
No disrespect to you. I just thought it was funny because that's always the first word in your post.

Re-read what I said and what you just replied. It's the same thing we are talking about. You just somehow assume or accuse me as if I'm saying Jesus screamed and yelled at people with so much anger and didn't care about them at all. That's not true and I hope you really understand it someday .

The point of the verse is Jesus called sinners and those sinners responded/accepted Him while the religious leaders did not accept and only pointed out why Jesus was hanging out with sinners. The contrary is the point as almost always was the case in all 4 gospels. Jesus is saying I'm not just hanging out with sinners as you assume or accuse.  Jesus is saying I'm accepting these so called sinners you would not consider as human beings while you were to love neighbor as yourself.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Thanks for responding.

I don't think the message there is about Jesus hanging out with "sinners." Of course He ate and drank with people, but I don't think it was just for the sake of "hanging out." He was there to accept and call those sinners into His Kingdom as you said. To accept and believe Him as a Savior is up to them and their heart to decide, but unfortunately many did/do not accept that as Jesus Himself pointed that out.

Also you need to understand that in those days, there was no internet and iphones and so many cultures and things to do like today.  Back in the day especially in the land of where Jews resided, they pretty much lived with the culture of God's words only. Talking about His words and worshiping Him were the majority of things people did. Since the religious leaders were not teaching the people correctly and only saw them as lower class and sick/diseased people, Jesus had to come and teach them correctly, accepting those so-called "sinner" and "sick." Jews taught with ambiguity, but Jesus taught very clearly until He started teaching with parables.

Sorry...what exactly are you trying to convey?  I am not even sure what you are pointing out or disagreeing with.  There is absolutely nothing wrong about "hanging out"...it's exactly what Jesus did in that verse.  He went there and hung out with the sinners. The mere fact that Jesus elected to even associate with them on any level is an incredible break from the norm.    Jesus modeled the concept of accepting people as they are, without conditions or lecturing.

I also don't know why you feel like I don't understand historical context.  I would disagree with you that people were so how more religious in Jesus' time especially since Israel was under Roman control.

The point of the message the verses you quoted is Jesus calls and accepts anyone even people consider as sinners or sick.
Hanging out part is really not what these verse are saying though I agree He did eat and drink with people, but that's not the focus and I know you would know as well.

No...it is exactly the point of the verse.  It is that a Christian should be with the sinners and accept them for who they are so that one can bring the Gospel to them. 

If Jesus just started preaching to them about how they are sinners...they would probably just walk away.  Instead, Jesus stopped and shared a meal with them, which if you are focusing on historical and social context is an extremely important (perhaps the most important) gesture.

Haha I love when you say just "No" like that. It almost happens every time. LOL
No disrespect to you. I just thought it was funny because that's always the first word in your post.

Re-read what I said and what you just replied. It's the same thing we are talking about. You just somehow assume or accuse me as if I'm saying Jesus screamed and yelled at people with so much anger and didn't care about them at all. That's not true and I hope you really understand it someday .

The point of the verse is Jesus called sinners and those sinners responded/accepted Him while the religious leaders did not accept and only pointed out why Jesus was hanging out with sinners. The contrary is the point as almost always was the case in all 4 gospels. Jesus is saying I'm not just hanging out with sinners as you assume or accuse.  Jesus is saying I'm accepting these so called sinners you would not consider as human beings while you were to love neighbor as yourself.

Again...why is "hanging out" something bad?  Why does it assume that "hanging out" is somehow not worth of Jesus?  Jesus also spent plenty of time with his family and friends...just to rest and talk.

I am seriously not understanding why you are making this a discussion.