^^^ good one. When the young rich man approaches Jesus and he really wants to follow Jesus...Jesus said "No problem, just give up everything you have and you can do it", the rich man then made a choice.

 

Just like today in 2007 mankind has a choice when it comes to Jesus.

Jesus is our Lord and Savior and above any and all others. I don't think that he differentuates(spelling?) between Republicans/Democrats/ Liberal/ moderates or any other tag that "man" wants to put on us. We are all his children and he wants us all to come to him. God's word is concrete and not to be deinied. I go on the simple statement of...."God Said it, I believe it and that's it ;)". Jesus is very clear on his word in the Bible and there are NO other way/ways or explanations of his word.

IMO there are very good Christians that are in all parties and there are also ones in all parties that are outside of the Lord. All I can do is pray that those that are will come to know the Lord and be saved. God is not a Democrat, Moderate or Liberal and you do not spell God ..G.O.P. .

 

What I am saying is that there is good and bad in all of us and in all parties and politics are not going to matter one bit in Heaven.... or Hell for that matter. Being a Democrat or Republican is not going to get anyone into Heaven. Coming to know Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour, being saved and becoming a Christian is and that is the oly thing that will.

 

I like that saying, they are a song that says God Said it, I believe it and that settles it for me. But I found that incorrect....although I do say it...Best way to say that is God said it....that settles it....and I believe it.... I heard a preacher say that once adn I'm like you know what he has a point.

These are NOT the words of a moderate:

 

John 14: 6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

Revelation 3:14-16 "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

 

He would not be for the legalizing of prostitution, drugs, abortion, etc.

 

 

Add to this the fact that Jesus doesn't merely TELL the truth, He IS the Truth and you can pretty much rule out the possiblilty of Him ever being a politician. :lol:

In Jesus' time, he would have been and was considered a liberal radical. He was all about change. The conservatives would have been the Pharisees and Sadducees.

In Jesus' time, he would have been and was considered a liberal radical. He was all about change. The conservatives would have been the Pharisees and Sadducees.

I have an opinion of who the pharisees and saducees are today, but it would just hurt feelings and get me in more hot water than I'm already in... :lol:

Nothing personal LBC, because I generally agree with you but, how do you know what "Condemn" meant by Jesus here? There is no clarifying thought other than the word. You are reading into the text what is not there on the surface all so you can make it sound like it was only an eternal distinction rather than a physical one.

 

While I am reading into it, it is a logical assumption. When is the ONLY time a person is condemned? When he physically dies and can no longer accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

 

What would have been the product of the stoning? The girl's death.

 

Thus, stoning her as the crowd wanted would have been an eternal condemnation.

 

Jesus refused to participate in that. BUT after refusing to particpate in the stoning and her physical death, he did JUDGE her, inferring that her actions was sinful and telling her to go sin no more.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus did not advocate governments forcing people to do His will. That is very much a libertarian approach to life. He asked His followers to commit their lives to him, but Jesus did not lobby governments to force people to act in a Christian way nor did he ask for special favors from the government for Him or his followers.

 

That is correct.

That is correct.

 

That was then...what will He be when He returns?

That was then...what will He be when He returns?

He'll be a moderate because everyone else will be to his left or right.

He'll be a moderate because everyone else will be to his left or right.

 

I was thinking something like czar, or tyrant, or dictator...

I was thinking something like czar, or tyrant, or dictator...

Would that make His followers Czardines? :sssh:

Would that make His followers Czardines? :sssh:

 

In the Millenium...but not now. :lol:

 

FYI - some people say "tsardines":D

While I am reading into it, it is a logical assumption. When is the ONLY time a person is condemned? When he physically dies and can no longer accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.

 

What would have been the product of the stoning? The girl's death.

 

Thus, stoning her as the crowd wanted would have been an eternal condemnation.

 

Jesus refused to participate in that. BUT after refusing to particpate in the stoning and her physical death, he did JUDGE her, inferring that her actions was sinful and telling her to go sin no more.

 

 

Sorry LBC but your "logical" assumptions are "reading into" the text a lot more than is there. (I must say that is the first time I've heard or read of such an interpretation) I think a lot of your heart and your posts. Just have to say that it's funny that for those who read symbolism into apocalyptic works (Revelation, Daniel, et al) we get hazed for not being literal. I don't see much literal here and I see it as "pick and choose" when to read into something and when not to.

 

If it was only about the eternal and that's all Jesus is concentrating on with his act, why go and raise Lazarus from the dead? Isn't it better for him to be in paradise? If it's only about the eternal then why does Jesus tell the Disciples to "give the crowd something to eat," when there doesn't appear to be enough food. Is it to show the power of God? Sure, and many believed. But even Jesus knew that such "miracle inspired" belief fades from real belief. Many left after the show and after they didn't get a return meal (Read John's version). I don't think it's just about spiritual bread or just about eternal salvation all the time and I don't think the text reveals that every time either.

Sorry LBC but your "logical" assumptions are "reading into" the text a lot more than is there. (I must say that is the first time I've heard or read of such an interpretation) I think a lot of your heart and your posts. Just have to say that it's funny that for those who read symbolism into apocalyptic works (Revelation, Daniel, et al) we get hazed for not being literal. I don't see much literal here and I see it as "pick and choose" when to read into something and when not to.

 

If it was only about the eternal and that's all Jesus is concentrating on with his act, why go and raise Lazarus from the dead? Isn't it better for him to be in paradise? If it's only about the eternal then why does Jesus tell the Disciples to "give the crowd something to eat," when there doesn't appear to be enough food. Is it to show the power of God? Sure, and many believed. But even Jesus knew that such "miracle inspired" belief fades from real belief. Many left after the show and after they didn't get a return meal (Read John's version). I don't think it's just about spiritual bread or just about eternal salvation all the time and I don't think the text reveals that every time either.

 

I am confused, because I don't see what the latter has to do with the former. And what I am stating is what I have always stated in the threads that this Scripture is brought up and in the "Christians shouldn't judge rhetoric."

 

Let me ask you:

Would stoning most likely result in her death? Yes or No.

If she died, would her place in eternal salvation be set with no change? Yes or No.

If she was as bad as indicated, is there a likelihood that she would not be going to heaven. Yes or No.

If Jesus did participate in the stoning and her eternal salvation was set upon her physical death, would he not be condemning her? Yes or No.

Did Jesus make a judgment on her life, when he told her to go and sin no more? Yes or No.

 

While absolutely we need to tend the needs while we are here on Earth, what is the reason for that? The true reason. For me, I think it is Christians showing the love of Jesus Christ through the body of His Church meaning us. I don't do things because I am a "good guy." I do things because I want people to know that this is what Jesus wants me to do for you.

 

Left to me and my worldly measures, I would still be at Applebee's 3-4 nights a week eating out instead of using that money instead to help others out.

 

I am a very selfish guy, baby of the family and admittingly spoiled rotten. Without Jesus transforming me, I wouldn't be thinking of others as much as I presently do. I know my college lives, my life was about 3 things, me, me and how me and my friends can have a good time.

 

Presently, I abhor the thoughts and decisions I made during those days.

In the Millenium...but not now. :lol:

 

FYI - some people say "tsardines":D

Tsar-ry for the confusion... :lol: