Exaggerations of Jesus?

[Rubiks]

tremple, you are extremely gnostic in your theology. Its seriously one of the worst errors in christian history. We don't become righteous by what we own, its what we do with it that matters. The disciples may have left their houses, yet they still lived rather comfortable lives. They stayed at people's houses all the time, they ate dinner together, etc. Why would Jesus say its bad to have a house, yet permit that we live in someone else's house? The conclusion is obvious. Jesus wants us to be completely committed to him and use our money, possessions and resources to serve him.

 

[Omena]

I don't recall Tremble saying it's bad to have a house, or to even USE money for that matter. What he HAS done is he has shown people verses from the Bible where Jesus tells us to do and not to do certain things, and he has provided arguments for how he has interpreted those things. Most of the people responding to Tremble, however, can only say that he is being gnostic or taking things too literally or being hypocritical. I haven't seen anyone giving evidence from Jesus himself, arguing against Tremble's points (i.e. that we DON'T need to follow Jesus' teachings), and that's simply because there is no evidence in the Bible to support that.

We need only look at what happened with Steeno a few posts back. His lie was so blatant, and yet nobody stepped in to point that out, except for Tremble and me. The rest of you stayed quiet, and that's how most Christians are today. Nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room (which in this case, are the teachings of Jesus). Nobody wants to even TRY to understand them. The reality is, most of you feel the teachings of Jesus are too hard, and you rest on the fact that God doesn't want us to do anything hard. It's a popular message. It's the one most people go for, and it's the one most churches are preaching to increase the size of their congregation and their collection plates.

Forget about Sunday worship....THIS is the great deception.

P.S. I just want to point out that I'm not even saying that Tremble is 100% correct in his interpretations. He (and I) could very well be wrong about some of things we've read from Jesus. The problem I'm seeing which I want to comment on is the fact that nobody wants to really know whether or not Jesus' teachings are meant to be followed literally. It's called hearing what we don't want to hear, and it's spiritually dangerous when we stop searching and learning because we're afraid of what we might find out.

 

[Steeno7]

I don't recall Tremble saying it's bad to have a house, or to even USE money for that matter. What he HAS done is he has shown people verses from the Bible where Jesus tells us to do and not to do certain things, and he has provided arguments for how he has interpreted those things. Most of the people responding to Tremble, however, can only say that he is being gnostic or taking things too literally or being hypocritical. I haven't seen anyone giving evidence from Jesus himself, arguing against Tremble's points (i.e. that we DON'T need to follow Jesus' teachings), and that's simply because there is no evidence in the Bible to support that.

We need only look at what happened with Steeno a few posts back. His lie was so blatant, and yet nobody stepped in to point that out, except for Tremble and me. The rest of you stayed quiet, and that's how most Christians are today. Nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the room (which in this case, are the teachings of Jesus). Nobody wants to even TRY to understand them. The reality is, most of you feel the teachings of Jesus are too hard, and you rest on the fact that God doesn't want us to do anything hard. It's a popular message. It's the one most people go for, and it's the one most churches are preaching to increase the size of their congregation and their collection plates.

Forget about Sunday worship....THIS is the great deception.

P.S. I just want to point out that I'm not even saying that Tremble is 100% correct in his interpretations. He (and I) could very well be wrong about some of things we've read from Jesus. The problem I'm seeing which I want to comment on is the fact that nobody wants to really know whether or not Jesus' teachings are meant to be followed literally. It's called hearing what we don't want to hear, and it's spiritually dangerous when we stop searching and learning because we're afraid of what we might find out.

How ironic. You point the finger at others and say, "nobody wants to even TRY to understand" even as you yourself have failed to try to understand. Instead choosing in your ignorance to slander. Ignorance is not bliss, not even close...and slander is still a sin. Both you and Tremble have slandered, judged, and condemned myself and other believers here. Take a hard look in the mirror, and consider the type of person your beliefs have created.

 

[Gunny]

Each and every word in the Bible is written by the same Spirit, even the words in red. Christ himself said, He says what the Father has told him to say.

Yet we have men like John the Baptist and Paul both lived very humble lives. Each of us are called to fulfill the Lord’s will. Each of us are a part of the body of Christ. Whatever you do, do it for the Lord.

In Christ
Daniel

Amen and Amen, my brother in Christ.


In Christ

Gunny/James

 

[tremble]

We don't become righteous by what we own, its what we do with it that matters.

You're right, God is very concerned about our behaviour while we are here on Earth. This is the purpose of Jesus' teachings. He gave us guidelines on how to behave in the Kingdom of Heaven. This is what I am promoting. As Omena said, I could be wrong, but that is the purpose of looking carefully at what Jesus said.

The disciples may have left their houses, yet they still lived rather comfortable lives.

It's good that you are at least acknowledging that the disciples did forsake all. I'm not against comfort. I've never said Jesus wants us to be miserable. In fact, the teachings of Jesus are good news. It's our desire to hang on to comfort which causes us to see Jesus' teachings as something miserable.

One day God may provide comfort for us and the next day he may ask us to do something which takes us out of our comfort zone. We need to be listening to God to know the difference.

They stayed at people's houses all the time, they ate dinner together, etc.

Thank you for point this out. I am suggesting that we do the same as Jesus and his followers.

Why would Jesus say its bad to have a house, yet permit that we live in someone else's house?

As Omena pointed out, Jesus didn't say it's bad to have our to use material things. The idea behind forsaking all is to get our attitudes and motivations straitened out.

 

[pescador]

I don't believe Jesus arbitrarily gives us new commandments. The whole reason Jesus came is because we couldn't obey God's commands.

There are some problems with this statement. 1) The Old Testament commandments were given to the nation of Israel, not to the people of the New Covenant (the new Israel). As Christians we are not, and never have been, under the Old Covenant of the law. 2) The reason that Jesus came is that we (Christians) might have eternal life (and have it abundantly). We are no longer slaves to any law but fully children of God, free in every sense of the word.

 

[tremble]

Your adhoc explanation of it being written that Joseph was a disciple to make him feel better doesn't tread water. The apostles wrote the scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; what they wrote about Joseph is absolute fact.

Okay, lets try this another way. Joseph really was a disciple of Jesus. But that being the case, we now have two classifications of disciple based on how they behave.

One group forsakes all their material possessions and they start living together and sharing their stuff together as a Christian community. Because they are no longer motivated by working for money they instead use their time to preach the kingdom of Heaven. They still use material posessions and even money from time to time when it comes to them, but they do not own those possessions. The church owns them.

The other group of disciples hang on to their stuff. They don't follow the same principles as the first group. They live separately from other Christians and they use their time to get more stuff (which is how they become wealthy in the first place). This group is also somewhat afraid to profess themselves as Christians because they are concerned about what their business partners and others may think of them because of their faith.

The first group describes the disciples who followed Jesus. The second group describes Joseph of Arimathea.

Thesunisout, how do you decide which of the two groups you want to be a part of? And why did you decide on that group? I think the answer is obvious, don't you?

 

[Gunny]

Jesus never exaggerated anything, it is people that exaggerate what He has said. That then leads to the apostasy in the church structures.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Amen and Amen.

Apostasy in my humble opinion in the western world (USA) appears to be the rule vs. the exception.

 

[pescador]

Amen and Amen.

Apostasy in my humble opinion in the western world (USA) appears to be the rule vs. the exception.

What do you base such a statement on? Have you taken a scientific poll of people (Christians and others) in the western world, asking them if they are apostates? Or are you just forming an opinion based on nothing but your imagination? The last I read, 77% of people in the US consider themselves to be Christians. They may not attend church every Sunday but how much do they watch Christian television, "attend" on Facebook, etc? The answer, I assume, is that you don't know.


Beware of self-righteousness. It means nothing to the Lord.

 

[thesunisout]

Okay, lets try this another way. Joseph really was a disciple of Jesus. But that being the case, we now have two classifications of disciple based on how they behave.

One group forsakes all their material possessions and they start living together and sharing their stuff together as a Christian community. Because they are no longer motivated by working for money they instead use their time to preach the kingdom of Heaven. They still use material posessions and even money from time to time when it comes to them, but they do not own those possessions. The church owns them.

The other group of disciples hang on to their stuff. They don't follow the same principles as the first group. They live separately from other Christians and they use their time to get more stuff (which is how they become wealthy in the first place). This group is also somewhat afraid to profess themselves as Christians because they are concerned about what their business partners and others may think of them because of their faith.

The first group describes the disciples who followed Jesus. The second group describes Joseph of Arimathea.

Thesunisout, how do you decide which of the two groups you want to be a part of? And why did you decide on that group? I think the answer is obvious, don't you?

You keep framing the discussion around a false dichotomy. This isn't about whether I think Joseph of Arimathea was a model disciple, or whether I would relinquish all of my earthly possessions. This is about whether your exegesis of Luke 14:33 is correct or not, and according to the scripture, it isn't. Joseph was a disciple; whether he was a poor disciple or not is immaterial. Your strict interpretation of Luke 14:33 cannot be correct because of that fact.

I don't disagree that Jesus called us to live a life radically different than the world, often completely contrary to its ways. I believe He does call some to give up their earthly possessions and jobs, but not everyone. It's up to Him and your idea that everyone must do so is simply you trying to play God in others lives. You need to admit to yourself that it isn't so black and white and that His ways are not your ways.

 

[tremble]

You keep framing the discussion around a false dichotomy.

I quoted what's actually in the Bible.

This isn't about whether I think Joseph of Arimathea was a model disciple,

And yet, you argue his case in post after post. Why did you bring his example into the mix if you were not promoting his version of discipleship?

There is a reason why you choose to ignore the fact that he was scared of what others would think of his relationship with jesus and instead focus on the money aspect.

This is about whether your exegesis of Luke 14:33 is correct or not, and according to the scripture, it isn't.

My "exegesis" is to promote the kind of lifestyle Jesus and his followers lived. There are many examples of Jesus and his followers applying Luke 14:33. There is only one verse about Joseph of Arimathea being a secret disciple for fear of what others would think of his relationship to Jesus.

Why do you ignore the many for the sake of one verse? Isn't it because you've found a convenient loophole to support materialism? You cling to it desperately in your posts.

Joseph was a disciple; whether he was a poor disciple or not is immaterial.

Hey, Judas was a disciple, too. Does that mean it's okay to deny and betray Jesus?

Your strict interpretation of Luke 14:33 cannot be correct because of that fact.

My strict interpretation as opposed to your loose interpretation?

I don't disagree that Jesus called us to live a life radically different than the world , often completely contrary to its ways.

You very clearly disagree. That is precisely why you brought up Joseph of Aramathea while ignoring the other disciples.

I believe He does call some to give up their earthly possessions and jobs

The point of the gospels is that God is already calling us. That is why we have the gospels. How can you be a follower of Jesus and not be "called" to follow his teachings? It's such a weird argument. It's like the twilight zone.

, but not everyone.

It's like a mantra, isn't it?

It's up to Him and your idea that everyone must do so is simply you trying to play God in others lives.

Is that how you feel when you hear someone teaching that we should obey Jesus? You feel that someone is trying to "play God" with your life? Don't you find that even a little bit odd?

 

[tremble]

Several people have said that Jesus did not exaggerate. I agree. But that wasn't really the point of the article.

The article talked about how other people claim that Jesus was exaggerating as a means of avoiding the spirit of the teaching.

This is why it has been argued on this thread that Jesus was deliberately extreme so that we would understand he never meant for us to take him seriously. Here is an example;

The demand is still for perfection, not just your best effort. In fact, the harder you try the more you will meet defeat, as the law actually stirs up sin.

This person has has exaggerated perfection to the point that he believes it is a good reason to not even try to obey Jesus anymore. Sure, perfection is God's standard. He doesn't want us to be any less, but he also understands how much we struggle, so he offers us grace, but that grace has now been turned into an excuse to ignore Jesus and the exaggeration about perfection makes this heresy look spiritually justified.

Other people have implied that Jesus wanted more than what he actually asked for. Here is an example;

Why would Jesus say its bad to have a house, yet permit that we live in someone else's house?

I never said it's bad to use a house. No one one this thread said it's bad to use a house. Jesus never said it's bad to use a house. No biblical writer said it's bad to use a house. So why did this person feel the need to argue that it's not bad to use a house? Where did it come from?

Yes, I talked about forsaking private ownership. I talked about sharing material possessions with other Christians.

Isn't this the basis for his exaggeration? He exaggerated what I said from "Christians sharing all things in common", to it being "bad to use something".

But why exaggerate? Isn't it because the exaggeration takes the attention away from what Jesus actually said and replaces it with something which sounds ridiculous? People go away thinking, "yeah, it's not bad to use a house" all the while missing what was actually said. Perhaps this is why Jesus was so fond of saying, "he who has ears to hear, let him hear" or why Isaiah said, "having ears they hear not".

Here is another example;

Now, how do I reconcile that with Tremble's call to take every word of Jesus as a command that must be followed to the letter?

Of course, I never said every word of Jesus is a command, so why the exaggeration? What did this person hope to achieve with it? That I was being somehow ridiculous for promoting obedience to Jesus?

Another example:

Are you wearing any clothes right now? Do you have any money or IDs, a birth certificate? Whose computer are you using? If you do, why are you ignoring the command of the Lord that you interpret from Luke 14:33 to forsake all you have?

Where did Jesus tell people they cannot use clothing? Sure, we should be willing to do anything for God, but did the disciples walk around naked? This person knows I am promoting the kind of lifestyle Jesus and his followers led, and yet he feels the need to change what Jesus said into an exaggerated version of living a life of naked destitution. Why?

A person over on another thread accused me of thinking food is evil, though I never said anything like that at all.

Another person accused me of just wanting the rich to forsake their stuff so that I could take it for myself, tough I never said anything like that nor even hinted at anything like that.

There are many examples I could post of this happening.

I've posted these few because I hope people will see that this isn't just a random religious argument. There is a consistent theme here against taking Jesus' teachings seriously and it's coming from several different sources independently.

 

[Gibs]

There are some problems with this statement. 1) The Old Testament commandments were given to the nation of Israel, not to the people of the New Covenant (the new Israel). As Christians we are not, and never have been, under the Old Covenant of the law. 2) The reason that Jesus came is that we (Christians) might have eternal life (and have it abundantly). We are no longer slaves to any law but fully children of God, free in every sense of the word.

Now that is accusing Jesus of worse than exaggerating. The law is immutable and stands unchanged for all eternity future.

Jesus did not abrogate the law, He upheld it strongly, read,

Mt 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

No He did not fulfill it in the sense that you don't have too, He fulfilled it as we are to do, by keeping it, He is our example, our Champion to copy!

Think, think, what law could He be talking about. He without doubt was referring to the one in the ark in the temple.

Where is the evidence of another and that God destroyed the one He gave and we know our God changeth not, if He did, would it not take away our trust in Him?

His law is a law of love as He is love and love does not change nor ever is of harm to any in any way!

Love for Him above all and our fellows as ourselves will fulfill the law as it can only be done by the service of love from the heart! The same of obedience, it also can only be had by the service of love from the heart as God sees the heart!

 

[tremble]

No He did not fulfill it in the sense that you don't have too, He fulfilled it as we are to do, by keeping it, He is our example, our Champion to copy!

Nice. ^.^

 

[Rubiks]

Now that is accusing Jesus of worse than exaggerating. The law is immutable and stands unchanged for all eternity future.

Jesus did not abrogate the law, He upheld it strongly, read,

Mt 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

No He did not fulfill it in the sense that you don't have too, He fulfilled it as we are to do, by keeping it, He is our example, our Champion to copy!

Think, think, what law could He be talking about. He without doubt was referring to the one in the ark in the temple.

Where is the evidence of another and that God destroyed the one He gave and we know our God changeth not, if He did, would it not take away our trust in Him?

His law is a law of love as He is love and love does not change nor ever is of harm to any in any way!

Love for Him above all and our fellows as ourselves will fulfill the law as it can only be done by the service of love from the heart! The same of obedience, it also can only be had by the service of love from the heart as God sees the heart!

We shouldn't let one vague verse have authority over the rest of the Bible. Christians do not have to obey Old Testament law. Just read Galatians 3 or the Book of Hebrews.

 

[Gibs]

We shouldn't let one vague verse have authority over the rest of the Bible. Christians do not have to obey Old Testament law. Just read Galatians 3 or the Book of Hebrews.

That don't ring out truth for me, far from it,

Jas 2:8 ¶ If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

 

[tremble]

We shouldn't let one vague verse have authority over the rest of the Bible.

Hi Rubiks. I'm glad you mentioned this because it's an important point which I've also been trying to communicate (i.e. Joseph of Arimathea is one verse). However, I think you may have a small misunderstanding. Although thesunisout mentioned luke 14:33 as an example, it is not the only example.

There are many examples of Jesus and his followers forsaking materialism and living/working together as a Christian community. it is an important part of the kingdom of Heaven that people share with one another.

I've posted many of these examples on post# 6 of this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7826661-17/

I hope you will read these examples for yourself to see that you've been misled about there being only one verse in question.

Christians do not have to obey Old Testament law. Just read Galatians 3 or the Book of Hebrews

Again, there is a misunderstanding here. I am not referring to the Ten Commandments or any Old Testament law. I am talking about Jesus teachings from the New Testament.

I am curious to hear back from you about those examples which I posted the link to and if receiving new information will help to change your perspective.

 

[pescador]

Christians don't have to obey anything. Slaves must obey their masters but the children are free. We are children of God and joint heirs with Christ, who died to set us free. He gave us the Holy Spirit so that we will be motivated to live life as He intends. We have been set free from the law of sin and death so that we might live to God.

 

[tremble]

Christians don't have to obey anything. Slaves must obey their masters but the children are free. We are children of God and joint heirs with Christ, who died to set us free. He gave us the Holy Spirit so that we will be motivated to live life as He intends. We have been set free from the law of sin and death so that we might live to God.

Yes, I am also talking about living the life Jesus intended for us. We said the same thing in two different ways, except I used a stronger word to describe this "living the life he intends" by called it obedience to his standards.

 

[Omena]

Christians don't have to obey anything

Does that mean I can kill somebody when they make me angry?