How much love is too much?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Faithful!

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

According to scripture we arent to fellowship with non-believers...and we are to be equally yoked with one another... fellowship does not mean we arent to serve or counsel or share the gospel with.. its understanding what "fellowship" means.. that means opening up your home your heart and your soul.. we fellowship with the Lord.. we fellowship with the body of Christ..We witness to non-believers.

I think I understand what you are saying. While I know it is common teaching, I look to the example that Jesus lived and I don't see it that way.

Jesus fellowshipped, to use your word and definition, with all manner of wayward people. And his witness was living as an example.

Something tells me that the verse(s) you mean at the beginning are referring to fellowshipping with people who are looking to cause trouble...rob a bank or blow up a building, pimp a collection of prostitutes or something like that.

I don't think it means not to fellowship with other people who are trying to get by like the vast majority, looking for the way back to our Heavenly Father.

[Silas]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Faithful!

I think I understand what you are saying. While I know it is common teaching, I look to the example that Jesus lived and I don't see it that way.

Jesus fellowshipped, to use your word and definition, with all manner of wayward people. And his witness was living as an example.

Something tells me that the verse(s) you mean at the beginning are referring to fellowshipping with people who are looking to cause trouble...rob a bank or blow up a building, pimp a collection of prostitutes or something like that.

I don't think it means not to fellowship with other people who are trying to get by like the vast majority, looking for the way back to our Heavenly
Father.

Jesus never fellowshipped with sinners. There is a difference between fellowshipping and sitting or being around sinners. Jesus said, "what does light (Christians) have in common with darkness (nonChristians). We cannot be of unequal yolk. We can go where sinners are to tell them the glorious gospel which can save them if they repent and believe, but we dont fellowship with them.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Silas

Jesus never fellowshipped with sinners. There is a difference between fellowshipping and sitting or being around sinners. Jesus said, "what does light (Christians) have in common with darkness (nonChristians). We cannot be of unequal yolk. We can go where sinners are to tell them the glorious gospel which can save them if they repent and believe, but we dont fellowship with them.

Now you're just mincing words. Matthew was a publican. Paul was a Pharisee. Jesus walked among lepers and blind and otherwise infirm, he walked among the poor in purse and in spirit, he walked among those dregs of society the likes of you would shun. He did so every day of his ministry practically. He fed the hungry. He consoled the grieving. And he told the physicians to go heal themselves, because they were too "righteous" for him to be able to do anything with. Indeed, those same self-righteous hypocrits were the ones that conspired to put him to death.

Besides, if Jesus doesn't fellowship with sinners, then I guess you and me are in for a hot time in the old hell at some point, huh?

[Silas]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Now you're just mincing words. Matthew was a publican. Paul was a Pharisee. Jesus walked among lepers and blind and otherwise infirm, he walked among the poor in purse and in spirit, he walked among those dregs of society the likes of you would shun. He did so every day of his ministry practically. He fed the hungry. He consoled the grieving. And he told the physicians to go heal themselves, because they were too "righteous" for him to be able to do anything with. Indeed, those same self-righteous hypocrits were the ones that conspired to put him to death.

Besides, if Jesus doesn't fellowship with sinners, then I guess you and me are in for a hot time in the old hell at some point, huh?

Again, there is a difference between fellowship and sitting with sinners to preach and to tend to them. Matthew was a publican and Paul was a Pharisee. Notice the past tense. Jesus never fellowshiped with the ungodly. Note Psa. 1. Jesus always did what is right in God's eyes.

[Prober]

By the strictest definition of the word, I'd have to agree with Faithfulservant.

I understand and agree with the spirit of what Juan is saying.

I don't think Jesus "fellowshipped" with unbelievers, now sinners - that's another story. Opening up your home? Yes. Soul? No.

I think this is the "spreading your pearls before swine" thing...
(not name-calling, just the text)

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Silas

Matthew was a publican and Paul was a Pharisee. Notice the past tense.

Like, uh, yeah...they're both long dead, duh. That's why the past tense.

Originally Posted by Silas

Jesus never fellowshiped with the ungodly. Note Psa. 1. Jesus always did what is right in God's eyes.

Yeah, so Jesus always did what is right in G-d's eyes, and he walked among the dregs of society...ergo, walking among the dregs of society is right in G-d's eyes!

I haven't at any time said anything about the ungodly. The closest would be the troublemakers I alluded to with Faithful. I agree, Jesus did not hang out with bank robbers planning their next heist. Did he sit with repentant thieves? I believe he did.

In fact, he died next to one.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Cyberpi!

Let me begin by saying I am sorry for your unfortunate state of affairs, and I certainly hope for the best (as in "G-d's will") in the end.

There is a difference in applying blanket judgementalism towards other individuals in a bigoted way, and focusing on redressing a specific harm. We return again to the lesson of "turn the other cheek," and again I stress that is an Aramaic idiom that means "do not start a hateful thing with your neighbor, but if your neighbor starts a hateful thing with you then you have a right and obligation to nip it in the bud." Apples and oranges.

You have been specifically dealt with deceitfully (presuming what you have said is truthful, and I have no reason now to believe otherwise). The matter is not a matter of faith, nor an issue within a congregation (although that one can get a bit sticky). Yours is an issue of principle, with interest ( )! G-d did not intend Christians (or any of His other children) to be doormats. We are to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves, to not let the right hand know what the left hand does. In a civil matter, it is only wise and proper to seek civil counsel to redress a civil wrong.

By the way my post was not in reference to the OP. I was responding to some words that I saw in Will's post on unconditional Love, and to the title of the thread. If Love means doing for others as I would have them do for me, then I agree in unconditional love. If Love means doing for others what they desire, unconditionally... then NOT. Doing for others per their will is conditional and a rebuke is part of Love. I think it is common to see judgement and forgiveness as opposing, or judgement and love as opposing, so that is why I posted that verse.

On blanket judgementalism, being judgemental, etc, if a person judges something that he does not see or experience, then is it really a judgement or is it just a fabrication made to suit that person's wishes? That is usually what I see. I submit that a judgement is a comparison between a situation seen and the model that a person has in their mind for what is true, loving, fair, righteous, etc... But if a person fabricates a judgement without any witness or measurement, then I consider it a fabrication... maybe not intentionally since a mind makes interpolations, extrapolations, and even false memories. While maybe not a valid judgement, the words usually still provide information for what the person thinks or wants to see.

So given that racism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc... involves judging millions of people that a person has never even met, I'm with you there. Generalizations and labels are ultimately extrapolations unless a person knows every person and has walked in the their shoes.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Silas

We should distance ourselves from all those who adhere to any other gospel than what we have recieved. As the Apostle Paul said..."let them be anathma (acursed!)."

We "received" over two dozen "Gospels". The first Vatican counsil, narrowed them down to four, as officially part of the Bible. Paul never saw one Gospel, because there was not yet a New Testament. What Paul was talking about is the Word of Jesus, versus the words of others proclaiming to be the "savior". For example, Paul was dead before the Gospel of Luke was written, yet it was the first Gospel to be included into the New Testament.

You really should study up on your History of New Testament in construct...I think you might be amazed at what you found.

v/r

Joshua

[Silas]

juantoo

Like, uh, yeah...they're both long dead, duh. That's why the past tense.

Actually no, they arent dead. They're more alive than you.

Yeah, so Jesus always did what is right in G-d's eyes, and he walked among the dregs of society...ergo, walking among the dregs of society is right in G-d's eyes!



I haven't at any time said anything about the ungodly. The closest would be the troublemakers I alluded to with Faithful. I agree, Jesus did not hang out with bank robbers planning their next heist. Did he sit with repentant thieves? I believe he did.

Jesus sat with all kinds of sinners from the worst to the not so bad (in our eyes). All people before they are born again are sinners. Again, Jesus sat and spoke with sinners, telling them of the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. But, never did he fellowship with them. Fellowshipping is for family. Jesus said, "do not be of unequal yoke." Why do you think he would break his own law and be a liar?

[Silas]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

We "received" over two dozen "Gospels". The first Vatican counsil, narrowed them down to four, as officially part of the Bible. Paul never saw one Gospel, because there was not yet a New Testament. What Paul was talking about is the Word of Jesus, versus the words of others proclaiming to be the "savior". For example, Paul was dead before the Gospel of Luke was written, yet it was the first Gospel to be included into the New Testament.

You really should study up on your History of New Testament in construct...I think you might be amazed at what you found.

v/r

Joshua

lol. You'd be suprised at what I know. I agree with the red part.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Silas

Jesus said, "do not be of unequal yoke." Why do you think he would break his own law and be a liar?

You are the liar. It was Paul who said not to be unequally yoked...in the context of mixed marriage...which he later backtracked on.

Jesus said no such thing. Twisted verses, again. Get thee behind me.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Silas

lol. You'd be suprised at what I know. I agree with the red part.

Then you also agree that Paul had no idea what a "Gospel" was, hence your original point becomes mute. And what "I" am surprised at is, for all the "knowledge" you have, how little is applied to reality. I am also amazed at the "jaundiced" approach you have taken, concerning humanity. Jesus, never condemned the "wretched"...only the self righteous, because it wasn't theirs to be self righteous...and the wretched didn't dare do anything, because it wasn't in them.

In fact, the "wretched" already considered themselves damned (in this life and the next). Same goes for today's people.

Most of the time, you sound like the "Sanhedrin" of the day, instead of a disciple of Christ's body, today...

[Silas]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Then you also agree that Paul had no idea what a "Gospel" was, hence your original point becomes mute. And what "I" am surprised at is, for all the "knowledge" you have, how little is applied to reality. I am also amazed at the "jaundiced" approach you have taken, concerning humanity. Jesus, never condemned the "wretched"...only the self righteous, because it wasn't theirs to be self righteous...and the wretched didn't dare do anything, because it wasn't in them.

In fact, the "wretched" already considered themselves damned (in this life and the next). Same goes for today's people.

Most of the time, you sound like the "Sanhedrin" of the day, instead of a disciple of Christ's body, today...

So are you a wretch? Do you weep over your sins and beat your chest saying "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner?" Does your sins effect you that much or are you content in your religion?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Silas

So are you a wretch? Do you weep over your sins and beat your chest saying "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner?" Does your sins effect you that much or are you content in your religion?

What should you care? You are the one standing on the corner praying for all to hear. Verily, you have your reward.

[Silas]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

What should you care? You are the one standing on the corner praying for all to hear. Verily, you have your reward.

I dont want people to go to hell, thats why I care. So are you going to repent and trust in Christ or are you going to spurn his grace, fully knowing what you'll be facing?