ARCHIVE - You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar

[His_saving_Grac]

I read it all again last night. It just re-affirmed my beliefs even more, that you like to take things out of context. Thank you, thank you, Thank YOU for the passion to read it again!

Whatever. you don't know me nor my posts on this forum. You opinion just shows I was correct about your boasting since you feel the need to belittle anyone who asks a question. I am not the first to bring it up nor the last.

Enjoy your life. May God bless you and all those you love. Goodbye.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

HSG writes...

You're spitting poisin.

Actually I have never met anyone yet spit more poison than you. Seriously! You lie (or at very least embellish) what I and others think and write. To me that is poison.

You continue...

The vinegar thing, in this case, wasn't working. It was obvious. And like a wind blowing harder and harder, trying to get a jacket off a man, I wrapped the jacket even tighter around my body.

But now you claim to be a Christian! maybe your brothers efforts paid off in the long run!

As far as anecdotal evidence is concerned... I myself did NOT come to Jesus with honey but with vinegar.

You continue...

Prostitutes, lepers, taxcollects, and the other rejects of soeciety approached Jesus who did not approach the religious leaders. What was it that Jesus did that was different?

And how did Jesus act towards these sinners? Was He accepting of their sin? Or did He rebuke them? Please show me ONE instance where Jesus was accepting of a sinners lifestyle and did not tell them they should stop sinning and repent. And did Jesus ever tell anyone that it was OK to have a sinful lifestyle.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Goose great points about the woman caught in adultery, I have had to explain that story MANY times on this forum.

You say...

Another note. Jesus was writing in the ground with his finger. What could he have been writing? The only other time the Lord wrote with his finger, was when he wrote the Ten Commandments with it in stone. I wonder what he was writing? Thou shalt not... Isn't this wonderful? This story shows the healing power and righteous judgement of the Lord.

I have another take on what Jesus might have been writing in the sand...

Keep in mind the Pharisees and scribes knew the 10 commandants pretty well in fact that was the very reason that they were bringing the woman to Him...

John 8:5 “Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?

....so I do not think He was writing the 10 commandments in the sand, if He were writing the 10 commandments in the sand the scribes and Pharisees probably wouldn't have ran away so quickly.

Think about this....

Jesus asked them...

“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

Any of the men could have asserted they were without sin.

But Jesus then wrote some more on the ground, and then the text says....

Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience

What could have convicted them in their conscience? Certainly not a re-telling of "Thou shall not commit adultery".

Jesus was most likely writing the names of the women that these Pharisees and scribes had committed adultery with themselves! You know like.... "Shirley..... Judy...... Alice...... etc." Now that would rock these guys world! And serve three functions:

1. Convict their consciences.
2. Make them realize Jesus knew things that He shouldn't.
3. Make a QUICK end to the "would be" trap.

Just food for thought!

 

[Goose]

HSG,

Whatever. you don't know me nor my posts on this forum. You opinion just shows I was correct about your boasting since you feel the need to belittle anyone who asks a question. I am not the first to bring it up nor the last.

Enjoy your life. May God bless you and all those you love. Goodbye.

I Timothy 5:20 "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."

I know of your previous posts. They're archived on this server! You feed the unbelievers with your wicked fruit.

Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Proverbs 24:25 But to them that rebuke [him] shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them.

Thank you for your wish of my/loved ones blessing from God!

I don't come or wish to destroy you brother, but to refine you.

 

[Goose]

....Jesus was most likely writing the names of the women that these Pharisees and scribes had committed adultery with themselves! You know like.... "Shirley..... Judy...... Alice...... etc." Now that would rock these guys world! And serve three functions:

1. Convict their consciences.
2. Make them realize Jesus knew things that He shouldn't.
3. Make a QUICK end to the "would be" trap.

Just food for thought!

WOW! Awesome! Such truth through the Spirit! I'm going to have to tell my friends this one.

 

[His_saving_Grac]

HSG writes...And how did Jesus act towards these sinners? Was He accepting of their sin? Or did He rebuke them? Please show me ONE instance where Jesus was accepting of a sinners lifestyle and did not tell them they should stop sinning and repent. And did Jesus ever tell anyone that it was OK to have a sinful lifestyle.

Exactly WHO are you responding to, because I did not say even one of these things. YOU need to go back and find the person who DID.

How do I dis-enroll from this sickening place?

 

[Atheist_Divine]

goose,

"Under the Roman government and law of the time, the Jews couldn't use their way of governing to punish. They had to first go to the Roman government and have them tried there. I'm not sure on the exacts, but this is the general idea. Therefore, they had to have an accusation against Jesus in order for him to be punished. It is written in verse 6! Very important, "This they said, tempting him, that they might have accuse him..." They didn't care about the woman! She was a pawn to them. They really wanted Jesus to condemn her to death, so that they could take Jesus to the Romans and say that he was usurping the government by sending this woman to death. but Jesus' "...hour has not come".

This is a disputed point. Jewish records suggest that the Jews could and did execute during the time of Jesus, and had the right to do so in matters pertaining to Jewish Law without advising the Prefect. Other Roman provinces were able to pronounce the death penalty in certain cases without asking the Prefect, too. On the other hand, the Gospels say they could not.

~AD~

 

[beanieboy]

Goose - you left out one thing.

Jesus said, The man who was without sin can cast the first stone.

Jesus was without sin. He was a man. Yet he didn't cast any stones. Why?

Was he using vinegar or honey here?

And what was the woman's response?

 

[Goose]

goose,


This is a disputed point. Jewish records suggest that the Jews could and did execute during the time of Jesus, and had the right to do so in matters pertaining to Jewish Law without advising the Prefect. Other Roman provinces were able to pronounce the death penalty in certain cases without asking the Prefect, too. On the other hand, the Gospels say they could not.

~AD~

I see what you're saying but it just doesn't fit. Why would Jesus of had to see Roman authority AFTER the Jewish council(Luke 22:66)? Why didn't they just stone him there? Why did he die on a Roman cross and not stoned? If anything, this is a testimony to just how close Jesus fulfilled the scripture. The bible even says Luke 23:25 "...for sedition and murder..." I don't think sedition is a Jewish law, but a Roman Law! This isn't suggestive. It's in the bible.

As for the adulterer, it says that "She was caught in the very act..." Where's the other partaker of the sin? He would have been caught just as easily as she, but he, the other partaker, is not there. Under the Law of Moses, both adulterers are to be put to death. Not just one. It was an unjust mock-trial to begin with. Their conscience drove them away, like the scripture says.

 

[Atheist_Divine]

Exactly, goose, Jesus was tried and convicted for crimes against Rome, not against Judaism. He was executed for political crimes, not for blasphemy.

 

[Goose]

Goose - you left out one thing.

Jesus said, The man who was without sin can cast the first stone.

Jesus was without sin. He was a man. Yet he didn't cast any stones. Why?

1 Timothy 1:15 "This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

That's why. That's also why it is SO important to repent! We can repent and be sorry with our spirit if anything, so we can accept God's Grace and enter Heaven when our spirit leaves our body. If we did something wrong, God can wash it away and even carry us if need be. We must accept that He has the power to do these things. I hope that takes care of your question? Good observations.

Was he using vinegar or honey here?

I don't remember Jesus using either, but I can tell you this: He was using forgiveness because of her repentance. He saw this woman as a scapegoat for an even wickeder sin than adultery. She might not of even knew that he could take away her sin, yet she acknowledged Jesus as the King of Kings. This added meaning, depth and flavor to her life. Like salt to a meal, it added sustanance. She said:

John 8:11 "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

See? I even emphasized the word LORD for everyone. I wouldn't call anyone Lord or Master unless I was being sarcastic, or they really were Mater of Lord to me. I doubt she was being sarcastic. Plus, the Pharisees didn't even condemn her! They just tried to bring her to condemnation. They wanted Jesus to condemn her so that he could be tried! "No one.." condemned her. No one brought her forth for her sin, but for their own beguiling. Jesus just didn't say "go" he said, "go, and sin no more". He said, "niether do I condemn thee". He forgave her for repenting. He didn't condemn her but he didn't just let her go to still sin either.

And what was the woman's response?

John 8:11 "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

 

[Goose]

Exactly, goose, Jesus was tried and convicted for crimes against Rome, not against Judaism. He was executed for political crimes, not for blasphemy.

What was the cause of him being tried in the first place? He was condemned by both.

 

[Atheist_Divine]

If the Sanhedrin had indeed convicted him of blasphemy they could have executed him right there, no need to go to Pilate. But as the gospels agree that he was executed by Pilate, it would seem reasonable to assume that he was, in fact, charged with treason, rather than blasphemy. It could be that the Jewish trial never happened, but was placed there to throw more blame on the Jews, than on the Romans. Particularly if you accept the dating of the Gospels to post-70. Jews weren't really in favour then.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Exactly WHO are you responding to, because I did not say even one of these things. YOU need to go back and find the person who DID.

Oooops your right, Beanie Boy wrote that! I am sorry sometimes it gets a little confusing responding to so many please accept my apology.

How do I dis-enroll from this sickening place?

Simple, you just stop coming to the site!

 

[Goose]

If the Sanhedrin had indeed convicted him of blasphemy they could have executed him right there, no need to go to Pilate. But as the gospels agree that he was executed by Pilate, it would seem reasonable to assume that he was, in fact, charged with treason, rather than blasphemy. It could be that the Jewish trial never happened, but was placed there to throw more blame on the Jews, than on the Romans. Particularly if you accept the dating of the Gospels to post-70. Jews weren't really in favour then.

I accept the bible as truth and bear record from it. The Jews were the ones who bore false witness against Jesus in front of the governing authority. The authority that executed the law. Jesus was blameless. This is a HUGE topic and quite out of the scope of this thread.

John 19:10 "Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

 

[beanieboy]

Well, if we aren't going to use an example, I don't see a point of discussing vinegar/honey. The liberals will define vinegar as being verbally abusive, which is not necessarily true, and the conservatives will act like honey is being overly passive, which is also not necessarily true. And then we argue about this concept, except we aren't arguing the same thing.

As I recall, I can't think of one reject of society (tax collector, prostitute, etc.) that Jesus was harsh with. Sure, he was harsh to Peter, for example, but Peter was a disciple. And he didn't say, Hey, Peter, you disgusting pile of filth, I can turn your life around." He was gentle in calling all of the disciples.

I think the problem of the "vinegar" comes when someone has decided it is their duty to change the heart of someone, and doesn't have enough faith in God to be the messager, and let him do the rest of the work. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, you know?

There have been uses of examples of saving people from a burning building. But, let's use a situation that is much more common. A person goes to a mosque, because they are Muslim. Are you going to physically block them from going in, and drag them to your church, ie, the way someone would drag someone out of a burning building? Would you mock them going in, and tell them that they are all going to hell?

This is the "vinegar" that I believe only pushes people away from God. And in applying it to an example, I can illustrate how "vinegar" is not what Jesus was using the majority of the time, and why it doesn't work.

 

[kiwimac]

Beanieboy said:

This is the "vinegar" that I believe only pushes people away from God. And in applying it to an example, I can illustrate how "vinegar" is not what Jesus was using the majority of the time, and why it doesn't work.

Jesus time and again tells us not to judge, Matthew 7, Luke 6, then goes further and tells us that its the very standards that we use to judge that we ourselves will be judged by

Salvation comes when a willing heart offers itself to God in an act of love. Love cannot be forced!, You don't endear yourself to someone by saying, "love me or die!", we recognise the truth of that in purely human relationships but fail to see that it is also true in our relationship with the "Really Real".

Jesus only once mentions what standard will be used on the judgement day, read it for yourself in Matthew 25: 31-46. Interestingly the standard is how much we put ourselves on the line for our fellow humans

It seems to be a truism that when we are in the service of our fellows then we are in the service of God! and that God defines service as active good works, feeding the poor, visiting the sick and imprisoned, clothing the naked, dealing compassionately with the sojourner in our midst.

In point of fact, it is interesting that Jesus begins his public ministry with a statement which is essentially the same as the Matthew one, In Luke, Chapter 4, vs 18 & 19,

" The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor:
He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives,
and recovering of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty them that are bruised,
To proclaim the acceptable year (ie Jubilee) of the Lord."
(Phillips)

This message of service to others is so important that Jesus begins his mission with it & declares it to be the very standard by which God will judge us on the last day.

Why then do we waste so much breath on speaking about God and spend so little time living as if God's call to compassionate service were truly important?

Kiwimac

 

[beanieboy]

Kiwimac has a good point. And I think the answer is that it is easier to judge people with little compassion or humility, than it is to serve people, so people focus on pointing out the faults of others, build walls, then blame people for those walls, etc., rather than offer their hand in friendship, and build bridges.

 

[kiwimac]

Beanieboy,

Yeah, I guess its far less threatening to judge someone than it is to live in compassionate, loving companionship with another human!

Kiwimac

 

[beanieboy]

Kiwimac - I don't think it has anything to do with threat. I think it is human nature.

To call someone a pervert, then do some drama queen thing, like say you are "shaking the dust off your feet" takes very little effort, very little struggle, very little sacrifice.

To help someone out - say, visit old people in a nursing home who don't have any visitors, takes initiative, takes the struggle of getting to know the person, may make you uncomfortable, and you have to sacrifice your time.

It's human nature. Most people would rather be lazy than exercise.