Love?

[justaname]

John 2:14-15 (KJV) says:

"And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting. And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen..."

Jesus did not use the whip to drive out the animals... It says he drove them all out of the temple, meaning the people he was angry at. No where does it say the whip was for the animals, but in context, he used it to drive out the people.



In Mat 15:12 the disciples said to Jesus, [paraphrasing], "Don't you know you offended the Pharasees? Jesus answered in verse 14-15:

"Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Let them alone:They be blind leaders of the blind."

So first off, it isn't only me that thought they were insults. Second, Jesus said the Father didn't plant them, so leave them alone. It doesn't look like Jesus was giving them a chance to repent. He didn't even want his disciples trying to teach them.




It is irrelevant that David was still under the Law. This Psalm has nothing to do with the Law. David is described as a man after God's heart and fulfilled all the will of God (Acts 13:22)

Psalms 139 says
"Surely thou shall slay the wicked oh God. Depart from me therefore thy bloody men. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain. Do I not hate them Lord, who hate thee? Am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred, I count them my enemies"

No where does it say he was "anxious". Philippians 4:6 doesn't say it either, but says, "Be careful for nothing". I suppose you are using a different version. If so, the use of the word "anxious" would have two totally different meanings. In Psalms, David was angry. In Philippeans, it means "to take thought of. In otherwords, "with food and rainment be content".

more later





I see you reasoning and like it and agree with it. But not your final conclusion. In context, 2 John is speaking about the Lady and her children, not everyone. If you doubt that, start reading that book at verse 7.... You will see what I mean. Even Eph 5:2 isn't talking about everyone. Furthermore.... It doesn't change the fact that God defined love as walking in his commandments.







Well, he hated Esau, so there goes your theory that there isn't s single living being God doesn't love. Hebrews 12 even says God rejected his repentance even though he (Esau) was sincere. As for God loving the Devil.... Yea, ok sure. Wow! I can agree that God uses Satan. But love him? What's the lake of fire for then? And guess what, It's not only Satan that's going to be there.

As for Paul not being God... True, but he was God's amassador and spokesman. When Paul talked EXCEPT when he spoke by permission, it was just the same as God talking. As for David not being God.... Well, David was a prophet and enjoyed "ambassador" status as well. Furthermore, I don't have any other candidates for people that fulfilled "all the will of God and were men after God's own heart." So I have to think that we should listen to him. Yes, we have the Bathsheba incident. Fine. But other than that, God seemed hunky dory with David.

Let me just ask you one thing.... Is God a man of War?

Lets go back to the whip issue...this is from the Pillar New Testament Commentary:The Gospel According to John

Jesus’ physical action was forceful, but not cruel; one does not easily drive out cattle and sheep without a whip of cords. Still, his action could not have generated a riotous uproar, or there would have been swift reprisals from the Roman troops in the fortress of Antonia overlooking part of the temple complex.

This is taken from the Pulpit Commentary: St. John (Vol. 1)

Ver. 15.—And when he had made a scourge of small cords (σχοινία of twisted rushes from the scattered fodder or litter of the cattle). This feature of the Lord’s action was not repeated at the close of the ministry. Observe that John singles out this punitive element in the first public appearance of the Lord for especial notice, and adds it to the otherwise resistless force which he was accustomed to wield by the glance of his eye or the tones of his voice. The “scourge,” as Godet says, is a symbol, not an instrument. It was in Christ’s hands a conspicuous method of expressing his indignation, and augmenting the force of his command, by an indication that he meant to be obeyed there and then. He drove them all out of the temple court (ἱερόν); that is, the intrusive sellers of the sacrificial beasts, the herdsmen, and traffickers. Also (τὰ τε) the sheep and the oxen, which moved at once in a vast group, turning, fleeing to the great exits; and he poured out on the ground, and with his own hand, the coins of the exchangers (κολλυβιστῶν), and overthrew the tables. “Christ had,” as Hengstenberg says, “a powerful confederate in the consciences of the offenders.” The presentiment of coming revolution and overthrow aided the impression produced by that majestic countenance and commanding glance, manner, and voice, that so often made men feel that they were utterly and absolutely in his power (cf. ch. 18:6, note).

And this particular commentary I think you will find rather interesting...New American Commentary 1-11

The temple, the Father’s house (cf. “house of prayer,” Mark 11:17 and parallels), had become a market house or a house of business (cf. “den of robbers,” Mark 11:17), and the disciples recognized that Jesus was intolerant (zealous) when it came to the misuse of God’s place by the religious leaders (John 2:17). The way Jesus reacted to the Jewish merchandising in the temple troubles some who cannot conceive of a loving Jesus being angry. But spineless love is hardly love. Instead, characteristics that adhere to anger and judgment can in fact be the obverse side of the coin of love. Personality is not single-faceted, and any theology that is monofocal and fails to encompass both love and judgment ultimately ends up in heresy.

Regarding the Matthew 15 comments Jesus never directly insults anyone, yet they were still offended....lets look

10 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand.
11 “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
12 Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?”
13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.
14 “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

So here it is a teaching they were offended by, so yes He was teaching them.

As far as David is concerned, was he taking after God's heart when he went for Bathsheba? How about when he had Uriah murdered? My point is he was firstly unregenerate, secondly human prone to error, and thirdly expressing his emotions within that Psalm in a transparent way. Yet lets look to how he closes the Psalm...

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me and know my anxious thoughts;
24 And see if there be any hurtful way in me,
And lead me in the everlasting way.

Here he seeks direction in the "everlasting way" as opposed to the "hurtful way". Also you can see where I get the anxious word from.

Looking back to love=walking in His commandments the commandments are to believe Jesus is the Christ and to love others.

So we can say love is faith in God and loving others.

I am not attempting to say this definition is insufficient, yet I believe we can dive deeper into the understanding of the concept of love and exactly what it is.

 

[FHII]

Isolating and cherry picking scripture to paint God in a bad light is what you are doing.

Seriously KingJ.... If we are talking about whether God hates anyone what do you think I'm going to do? I'm going to show you the verses that state God hated some people. That's cherry picking? If so what are you doing? You are ignoring them and actually, you are trying to sandwich them and buffer them with John 3:16 and Acts 10:34 in hopes that it'll go away.

I would have no problem discussin those two verses with you (although you won't like it because they don't say what you think they say) as well as the book of Jonah or any other scripture. Here's the thing though, I accept that God is love and that he is long suffering and I accept that God told us to love our enemies. True. However, thats not what God is all about. The scripture says that God hated some people and has enemies and is an enemy to some people. You don't seem willing to accept that and the big indication to me that you aren't willing to accept that is how you believe God loves the devil. He doesn't. Do you love Satan? I sure don't.

 

[KingJ]

You don't seem willing to accept that and the big indication to me that you aren't willing to accept that is how you believe God loves the devil. He doesn't. Do you love Satan? I sure don't.

Your renewed Christian heart doesn't love your enemies? I would think that is a pretty good acid test for our Christianity / those sessions on our knees before God of self judgment in fear and trembling Phil 2:12.

We don't just need Matt 5:44 to know that we must love our enemies or Acts 10:34 to know that God is impartial. Many scriptures if read honestly point in that direction.

If the unsaved can introduce something like the Geneva convention on the treatment of enemies...how much more the saved...how much more a good God who created all....?

What would you think of God if He hated YOU? You would serve a God that hated your unborn baby?

You can be forgiven for putting God in this box. But please try grasp that you cannot grasp God or put Him in a box Job 3:9 except for the one He puts Himself in. He says ''John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

As David says ....FHII ''give thanks BECAUSE God IS good Psalm 136:1.

 

[FHII]

And this particular commentary I think you will find rather interesting...New American Commentary 1-11

The temple, the Father’s house (cf. “house of prayer,” Mark 11:17 and parallels), had become a market house or a house of business (cf. “den of robbers,” Mark 11:17), and the disciples recognized that Jesus was intolerant (zealous) when it came to the misuse of God’s place by the religious leaders (John 2:17). The way Jesus reacted to the Jewish merchandising in the temple troubles some who cannot conceive of a loving Jesus being angry. But spineless love is hardly love. Instead, characteristics that adhere to anger and judgment can in fact be the obverse side of the coin of love. Personality is not single-faceted, and any theology that is monofocal and fails to encompass both love and judgment ultimately ends up in heresy.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is with these three commentaries, because they don't seem to agree with each oter. The first one seems to say Jesus only used the whip to drive out the sheep and oxen, and that he didn't cause that big of an uproar. Well, if that's what it is saying I disagree. Jesus cause enough of an uproar that the people fled.

The second one seems to suggest Jesus didn't even need the whip because of his authoritive personality and even his "glare" were enough to drive them out. Well, I agree that he had that personality, but it kind of kills the persona that he was a mild, meek lamb (just a general observation). Regardless, he still made a whip and the Bible in context suggests he used it to drive them out.

The third seems to speak of the love of Jesus and attempts to answer how Jesus (who is all love and nothing else) could actually be that mean (my words in paraphrasing). Well, I kind of like it! What Jesus did was indeed out of love: Love for the Father and love for those who those who hungered to serve God in truth. It wasn't love for the money changers. Sure... If they learned their lesson and repented, I'm sure Jesus would've forgiven them, but nothing in this account suggests that was the mindset of Jesus. He was ticked off.

Regarding the Matthew 15 comments Jesus never directly insults anyone, yet they were still offended....lets look

10 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand.
11 “It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
12 Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?”
13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted.
14 “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”

So here it is a teaching they were offended by, so yes He was teaching them.

Jesus did offend them and insult them. He called them hypocrites, said their worship was in vain and transgressed the commandments. You have to start at verse one where the pharasees and scribes asked Jesus why his disciples didn't wash their hands before eating. I don't know why you started at verse 10, but I think perhaps verses 1-9 is a separate incident; it's not.

Let me give a brief rehashing of what happened:

1. the scribes and pharasees ask Jesus why his disciples didn't wash their hands before eating.
2. Jesus calls them hypocrits, points out a real transgression they have, and says this hand washing thing isn't from God, but their own traditions.
3. Jesus turns to the crowd and explains to everyone that food doesn't defile anyone, but false doctrine and traditions of man defile men.
4. His disciples tell him the pharasees and scribes were offended. Jesus said that they were blind leaders of the blind and tells the disciples to leave them alone. In other words, don't bother with these fools.
5. Peter then comes and asks for a meaning to the parable. Jesus lovingly marvels briefly that Peter still isn't getting it, then explains the parable and concludes that out of the heart evil thoughts and these things defile a man and not unwashed hands.

It is at point number 5 that we know this whole thing was one incident.

As for David.... First off, you'll have to tell me which Bible says his thoughts were anxious, because it isn't in the KJV or several other versions I checked. Neither does it say "hurtful" way, but rather "evil" or "wicked" way. There is a difference. Second, yes we all know the story of Bathsheba and Uriah... I have brought them up before. So what do we do with this psalm? Through it out? Do we ignore Acts 13:22? In short, is this psalm scripture that is inspired?

Obviously I don't think you are suggesting such a thing. However, I don't see anyone -- prophet or apostle or Jesus -- correcting him on this matter other than Jesus saying love your enemy. I'm all for that! Just do it the way David did it and Paul did it. In Psalms 139:19, David turns them over to God by saying, "Surely thou shall slay the wicked O'God." Paul turned them over to Satan and said The Lord do his will concerning them. If that's not enough for you, do it the way Jesus did. He called them a generation of vipers, hypocrites, blind and even drove them out of the temple. If they repent, yes sure... Forgive them and accept them as the Christians did Paul.

These are examples of loving your enemy.

 

[justaname]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is with these three commentaries, because they don't seem to agree with each oter. The first one seems to say Jesus only used the whip to drive out the sheep and oxen, and that he didn't cause that big of an uproar. Well, if that's what it is saying I disagree. Jesus cause enough of an uproar that the people fled.

The second one seems to suggest Jesus didn't even need the whip because of his authoritive personality and even his "glare" were enough to drive them out. Well, I agree that he had that personality, but it kind of kills the persona that he was a mild, meek lamb (just a general observation). Regardless, he still made a whip and the Bible in context suggests he used it to drive them out.

The third seems to speak of the love of Jesus and attempts to answer how Jesus (who is all love and nothing else) could actually be that mean (my words in paraphrasing). Well, I kind of like it! What Jesus did was indeed out of love: Love for the Father and love for those who those who hungered to serve God in truth. It wasn't love for the money changers. Sure... If they learned their lesson and repented, I'm sure Jesus would've forgiven them, but nothing in this account suggests that was the mindset of Jesus. He was ticked off.



Jesus did offend them and insult them. He called them hypocrites, said their worship was in vain and transgressed the commandments. You have to start at verse one where the pharasees and scribes asked Jesus why his disciples didn't wash their hands before eating. I don't know why you started at verse 10, but I think perhaps verses 1-9 is a separate incident; it's not.

Let me give a brief rehashing of what happened:

1. the scribes and pharasees ask Jesus why his disciples didn't wash their hands before eating.
2. Jesus calls them hypocrits, points out a real transgression they have, and says this hand washing thing isn't from God, but their own traditions.
3. Jesus turns to the crowd and explains to everyone that food doesn't defile anyone, but false doctrine and traditions of man defile men.
4. His disciples tell him the pharasees and scribes were offended. Jesus said that they were blind leaders of the blind and tells the disciples to leave them alone. In other words, don't bother with these fools.
5. Peter then comes and asks for a meaning to the parable. Jesus lovingly marvels briefly that Peter still isn't getting it, then explains the parable and concludes that out of the heart evil thoughts and these things defile a man and not unwashed hands.

It is at point number 5 that we know this whole thing was one incident.

As for David.... First off, you'll have to tell me which Bible says his thoughts were anxious, because it isn't in the KJV or several other versions I checked. Neither does it say "hurtful" way, but rather "evil" or "wicked" way. There is a difference. Second, yes we all know the story of Bathsheba and Uriah... I have brought them up before. So what do we do with this psalm? Through it out? Do we ignore Acts 13:22? In short, is this psalm scripture that is inspired?

Obviously I don't think you are suggesting such a thing. However, I don't see anyone -- prophet or apostle or Jesus -- correcting him on this matter other than Jesus saying love your enemy. I'm all for that! Just do it the way David did it and Paul did it. In Psalms 139:19, David turns them over to God by saying, "Surely thou shall slay the wicked O'God." Paul turned them over to Satan and said The Lord do his will concerning them. If that's not enough for you, do it the way Jesus did. He called them a generation of vipers, hypocrites, blind and even drove them out of the temple. If they repent, yes sure... Forgive them and accept them as the Christians did Paul.

These are examples of loving your enemy.

Okay we have drifted a bit off topic here but let me reply...

Your post..."To rehash, Jesus' way of showing love was publically insulting the Pharasees, beating them with a whip and at one point he told his disciples not to even bother with them (look at Mat 15:14). He was showing love.... For the Father. But he wasn't showing love to them (other than telling the truth about them)."

The point of the commentaries is to show that the text does not necessitate Jesus "beating them with a whip" as your eisegesis insists. The third commentary is to show how love does not need to be "spineless". It is not that Jesus didn't love the money changers, he did not approve of their activity and brought it to an abrupt end.

Now back again to the Matthew 15...

I fully understand the passage within the context. The point I am fleshing out is Jesus was giving a teaching...never did he insult them. The word hypocrite is not an insult, it is a description of behavior.

Lets look to what Jesus says about "insults"...

21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sisterb c will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’d is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

I have not completely studied this passage, yet my brief assessment. Everyone is to give an answer for everything uttered out of our mouths. When we speak out of anger we can give inaccurate judgements and insults against someone. This is why we are "in danger of the fire of hell". Yet I believe if we are giving accurate descriptions of people we are justified in our descriptions. Like when Jesus said the Pharisees are like "whitewashed tombs" his description was spot on. Yes it can be taken as an insult, but the truth hurts sometimes. We know Jesus to be sinless, and He was never in danger of hell. He did not give "insults" rather accurate descriptions.


Now for the love your enemy thing lets look to the text again...

2Kings 6:22
He answered, “You shall not kill them. Would you akill those you have taken captive with your sword and with your bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master.”

Proverbs 25:21-22
21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat;
And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;
22 For you will heap burning coals on his head,
And the Lord will reward you.

The principle is to show kindness to your enemy, just like David did with Saul. 1Samuel 24 and again in 1Samuel 26
My opinion of David was he was a man after God's heart. We are not to dismiss this, yet we need to understand the he was a "man". His emotions and thoughts were not continually pure. The Holy Spirit did inspire him thru the Psalms transparently, yet a careful examination of the Psalms reveals David desired to yield himself to God's will (although not always perfectly).

And what does Jesus say in the context of loving your enemies?

Matthew 5:44
“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Luke 6:27-28
27 “But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Luke 6:35
35 “But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.
36 “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Jesus gives us a standard that was not set only from the time of His appearance, yet is the standard of God Eternal. The "pray for your enemies" is to ask God to bless them not take vengeance on them.

Saying "I will love my enemies like Paul and David" is firstly a copout. Secondly I believe you lower the standard how David and Paul actually did love their enemies. Thirdly the standard should be followed from the perspective God desires not by the example of other men.

 

[FHII]

Justaname,

I'm going to freelance this a bit and not respond quote - to - quote. The bottom line is that I appreciate commentaries, but not to the point above scripture. When I read the scripture about Jesus, the whip and the money changers, my mind is not changed. Jesus made the whip with the intent of chasing the money changers out with it. He was angry at them and his love was first to God. He was upset that his house was being misused and that worshippers were being subjected to the den of thieves. Why? See, what was happening actually wasn't a bad idea. God wants a perfect sacrifice. Why not start a business and have folks who know what God wants in charge? I bet every animal up for sacrifice was certified perfect for giving. That wasn't the point. God did not want the best available, he wanted the people's best. In other words, he wanted the people to make a sacrifice, not buy one.

The problem is that in the end, Jesus made a whip, and chased the folks out of the temple. You want to call it "tough love" fine. OK. The problem is, Jesus wasn't practicing Romans 12 in many ways. Jesus gave place to wrath... Think about that. the only solution is that Jesus was showing love for the Father MORE. Yes, the love trickles down. I am a firm believer in TRUTH and that is how you show love. So if you want to say Jesus was loving them by saying, "No, don't do it this way!" Fine. But he still whipped there rear ends out of the temple. That's what the scripture says and no commentary is going to counter the true account.

Concerning Matthew 15. If you want to say being called a hypocrite isn't an insult, fine. I really want to call you one because you wanted to tell me all about how David was under the law and thus we should not take into account Psalms 139, YET lately you bring a lot of OT scripture into account. That's hypocritical and I could also say you are blind (for other reasons, which I'll talk about later) and anyone who believes like you is going to Hell with you. Why? Because that is basically what Jesus was saying.

But I'm not insulting you and don't take it personally.

Don't take it personally because I'm making a point. Furthermore.... If you want me to excuse this passage, fine. Jesus called the Pharasees, the Jews and even his own disciples many names including a generation of vipers, Satan, Children of the Devil... The list goes on.... Do you deny that? Must I do the dirty work of digging up scripture?

But I do have to retract. I saw something in Matthew 15 that I have to think about that suggests the Pharasees weren't insulted by being called hypocrites. Jesus offended and insulted them many other times, but perhaps not here. Rest assured it was nothing you said.... But I thank you for showing it to me as you made me go through the process of reading and studying. Perhaps I'll share it with you.

Now, you want to bring up 2 Kings 22 and Proverbs 25... Fine. I agree. These are guys "under the law" and guys that you seem wouldn't give a second of your thoughts because of that previously. But they are wonderful verses. Yet, I can produce verses that state that God told Israel it would be righteous if the killed every man, woman, child, baby and even animals and pets (that makes me mad) of their enemy. Even further, God got upset when they didn't do it! Can you deny that or do you have a Bible that some bleeding heart liberal preacher with a pair of scissors got a hold of?

Proverbs 25 is interesting because Paul (the guy you say if I follow is a copout) spoke about it in Romans 12 I believe. He put it in context, and I agree with it and it has been my stance all along. Review it when you have the time and get back to me.

By the way, Paul said, "Follow me as I follow Christ." So it really isn't a copout to follow Paul. If I follow his example, I follow Jesus' example. Who, pray tell, are you followng the example of? Fruthermore, Paul knew in part. Paul never had a Bible, he didn't have a written document of what John and Peter were preaching. or Jude, or James. I do. You do as well. Nothing I have done lowers his standards, but it raises them.

I have read the whole Bible. Every scripture, every verse, every chapter. I fully believe it is God revealing himself and his nature and his perfectiveness (if that's a word) to us. It's probably the Biggest jigsaw puzzle in this universe or any other. I don't have it all figured out but what I do have figured out is you can't isolate John 3:16, Matthew 5 and verses that preach Love and build a doctrine on it. You have to eat the whole book, as the book of revelations says.

So what is Love? I say Truth, obeying his commandments (same thing) and walking in them. One of which was loving one another, and that particularly means the brethren -- those of like precious faith. Loving others? Sure, but even with God's love there are restrictions. No. We aren't supposed to "love" everyone and I have not yet presented the best scripture that says that.

So justaname, who are your enemies? And what are you doing for them?

 

[justaname]

Justaname,

I'm going to freelance this a bit and not respond quote - to - quote. The bottom line is that I appreciate commentaries, but not to the point above scripture. When I read the scripture about Jesus, the whip and the money changers, my mind is not changed. Jesus made the whip with the intent of chasing the money changers out with it. He was angry at them and his love was first to God. He was upset that his house was being misused and that worshippers were being subjected to the den of thieves. Why? See, what was happening actually wasn't a bad idea. God wants a perfect sacrifice. Why not start a business and have folks who know what God wants in charge? I bet every animal up for sacrifice was certified perfect for giving. That wasn't the point. God did not want the best available, he wanted the people's best. In other words, he wanted the people to make a sacrifice, not buy one.

The problem is that in the end, Jesus made a whip, and chased the folks out of the temple. You want to call it "tough love" fine. OK. The problem is, Jesus wasn't practicing Romans 12 in many ways. Jesus gave place to wrath... Think about that. the only solution is that Jesus was showing love for the Father MORE. Yes, the love trickles down. I am a firm believer in TRUTH and that is how you show love. So if you want to say Jesus was loving them by saying, "No, don't do it this way!" Fine. But he still whipped there rear ends out of the temple. That's what the scripture says and no commentary is going to counter the true account.

Concerning Matthew 15. If you want to say being called a hypocrite isn't an insult, fine. I really want to call you one because you wanted to tell me all about how David was under the law and thus we should not take into account Psalms 139, YET lately you bring a lot of OT scripture into account. That's hypocritical and I could also say you are blind (for other reasons, which I'll talk about later) and anyone who believes like you is going to Hell with you. Why? Because that is basically what Jesus was saying.

But I'm not insulting you and don't take it personally.

Don't take it personally because I'm making a point. Furthermore.... If you want me to excuse this passage, fine. Jesus called the Pharasees, the Jews and even his own disciples many names including a generation of vipers, Satan, Children of the Devil... The list goes on.... Do you deny that? Must I do the dirty work of digging up scripture?

But I do have to retract. I saw something in Matthew 15 that I have to think about that suggests the Pharasees weren't insulted by being called hypocrites. Jesus offended and insulted them many other times, but perhaps not here. Rest assured it was nothing you said.... But I thank you for showing it to me as you made me go through the process of reading and studying. Perhaps I'll share it with you.

Now, you want to bring up 2 Kings 22 and Proverbs 25... Fine. I agree. These are guys "under the law" and guys that you seem wouldn't give a second of your thoughts because of that previously. But they are wonderful verses. Yet, I can produce verses that state that God told Israel it would be righteous if the killed every man, woman, child, baby and even animals and pets (that makes me mad) of their enemy. Even further, God got upset when they didn't do it! Can you deny that or do you have a Bible that some bleeding heart liberal preacher with a pair of scissors got a hold of?

Proverbs 25 is interesting because Paul (the guy you say if I follow is a copout) spoke about it in Romans 12 I believe. He put it in context, and I agree with it and it has been my stance all along. Review it when you have the time and get back to me.

By the way, Paul said, "Follow me as I follow Christ." So it really isn't a copout to follow Paul. If I follow his example, I follow Jesus' example. Who, pray tell, are you followng the example of? Fruthermore, Paul knew in part. Paul never had a Bible, he didn't have a written document of what John and Peter were preaching. or Jude, or James. I do. You do as well. Nothing I have done lowers his standards, but it raises them.

I have read the whole Bible. Every scripture, every verse, every chapter. I fully believe it is God revealing himself and his nature and his perfectiveness (if that's a word) to us. It's probably the Biggest jigsaw puzzle in this universe or any other. I don't have it all figured out but what I do have figured out is you can't isolate John 3:16, Matthew 5 and verses that preach Love and build a doctrine on it. You have to eat the whole book, as the book of revelations says.

So what is Love? I say Truth, obeying his commandments (same thing) and walking in them. One of which was loving one another, and that particularly means the brethren -- those of like precious faith. Loving others? Sure, but even with God's love there are restrictions. No. We aren't supposed to "love" everyone and I have not yet presented the best scripture that says that.

So justaname, who are your enemies? And what are you doing for them?

Well I suppose your condemnation of me within this post is sufficient to end the rabbit trail. It is quite obvious you have your view into the text and no amount of Scriptural evidence, historical context, or biblical principles I present will persuade your opinion.

Thanks for the discussion!
I pray God blesses your comprehension of the Holy Scriptures in Jesus' name. So be it.

 

[FHII]

Well I suppose your condemnation of me within this post is sufficient to end the rabbit trail. It is quite obvious you have your view into the text and no amount of Scriptural evidence, historical context, or biblical principles I present will persuade your opinion.

Thanks for the discussion!
I pray God blesses your comprehension of the Holy Scriptures in Jesus' name. So be it.

And I can say the same for you. You've obviously made up your mind and the Scriptual evidences I've provided you aren't going to persuade your opinion. As for the "condemnation" you spoke of.... I wasn't condemning you, I was making a point. I hope you got the point but since you feel its a condemnation, I obviously failed to get the point across.

Have a pleasant day, and I too appreciate the discussion.

 

[justaname]

And I can say the same for you. You've obviously made up your mind and the Scriptual evidences I've provided you aren't going to persuade your opinion. As for the "condemnation" you spoke of.... I wasn't condemning you, I was making a point. I hope you got the point but since you feel its a condemnation, I obviously failed to get the point across.

Have a pleasant day, and I too appreciate the discussion.

Yeah I did'nt get the point, but I understand now you did'nt mean it.

Hey we can't agree on everything!
Don't we have a thread about that? Lol