Believers instinctively know that Jesus was full of it

[_Hoops]

What is the "challenge of the gospel" in your opinion? Because as a non-christian I would need to know what it is before I know if I endorse it or think it is healthy.

To live as if I knew that there is Someone, Some thing, larger than me who loves me

Why is complacency an enemy?

Complacency pertaining to remembering our standing with God.

Why is it wrong to feel safe and satisfied with your life or your current situation?

It's not. It's a blessing

What is the desirable way to be? Never satisfied? Always searching? Always feeling crappy about ones life or situation and always struggling to make things different?

Always participating. Always giving of oneself and one's things.

I no longer like the idea of always striving to live up to some manmade ideal of "perfection" and never quite reaching it.

Me neither.

Always being admonished to "more fully live up" to something creates the mindset that you aren't living up to whatever the ideal is. It is a "you suck" message, basically.

I dislike that as well. That not Christian.

[_Uncle Dale]

...It would seem there is a big difference to Israel between pre and post incarnation.

Actually I like that conclusion -- we ought to insert the "it would seem"
into the Apostles' Creed, etc. Making religion less dogmatic, perhaps.

But the premise is illogical.

Let's say it is day one of the year 1 -- and I am Samuel, the brother
of Joseph, and have also gone to Bethlehem to register for taxation.

I come across Joseph in the crowd and he takes me to a lowly manger
wherein I discover a newborn infant.

"Bow down and worship the Lord God of Israel," my brother demands.

I do so, and he tells me that my repentance has been accepted.

"But what about Martha, my late wife?" I ask, in worried tones.

"It's OK," replies Joseph -- she died BEFORE THE INCARNATION,
so her repentance (with no mention of Jesus) was accepted by
God the Father in Heaven."

And then Joseph adds: "But if she offered up such a repentance,
to YHWH, today, she would be condemned to hell for false prayer."

Makes no sense to me. I cannot find your definition of "repentance"
published in any dictionary -- theological or secular.

"It would seem" that you have overstepped the bounds of proper doctrine.

UD

[_Buffalo]

A literalist is not required to take everything in the Bible literally. Only to begin there. It is clear that this verse is making a much broader, attitudinal point.

It can be argued that Luke was writing to a Greek audience, whether they were converts or not may not be so clear. But, more importantly, we must remember that Jesus' words as recorded by Luke, came at a time when Jesus was still preaching The Kingdom of God. This is NOT the church, rather, it is the literal thousand year reign of Christ. It is the Messiahship that Israel had been looking for, and rejected.

Buffalo's single verse, violently pulled from its context, is smack dab in the middle of teaching parables about recognizing that The Kingdom of God is at hand. Or near. Or right in front of them if they would only believe their own scriptures. You know the rest.

Note that in Luke 14:1 Jesus knows he is being watched by the pharisees. And, of course, He calls them out for protesting healing on the Sabbath. It's clear that this chapter, and those surrounding it, is not about doing this or that to be compliant, rather it is about recognizing who Jesus is, The Messiah. And by doing so, ushering in His Messiahship, The Kingdom of God, and by heeding Jesus' words and doing good, one can gain TKoG. In other words, the pharisees are so concerned about their rules and rituals that they fail to see what is right in front of them. All of these chapters, starting at about Luke 11 I think, are about true repentance, Israel repenting of their national sin, which is not recognizing who Jesus is. (Yes, I know repentance used in later chapter regarding a specific circumstance, but even then, the story is about recognizing who Jesus is).

To further amplify this point, it's interesting to note that every non-Christian religion regards Jesus as something other than what a Christian claims. A prophet, great teacher, one of many or several gods. Recognizing Jesus as the One, True God is repentance.

A few chapters later - again, still preaching TKoG, Zacheuss agrees to give up HALF of what he has. Jesus responded that salvation has come to this house today. So in one instance all is required, in another only half. But what is the constant? One chose not to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the other did believe. So the point is for Israel to set aside, or give up what is most dear to them, the rules and rituals instituted by their leaders - their Israel-ness, if you will - and recognize what is right in front of them. In addition, Jesus is asking about the challenge of becoming an apostle, or disciple, to preach TKoG to an unbelieving nation. See Luke 21. The authorities, obviously, would be against them. Note Luke 17:20 "...The Kingdom of God is in your midst."

Note also in Luke 18 that Jesus predicts his death, for the third time I think, and that the apostles didn't understand. Here is where we begin to see Jesus' ministry shifting from focused on Israel to Gentiles. Though certainly fleshed out more in other gospels, the parallels are there.

A thought as I was reading this: Jesus never claimed to be the one, true god. This is especially true in Mark, the oldest and most credible of the gospels.

In any case, you main thesis as it applies to the OP seems to be that Jesus was capricious about how much he required his disciples to give up in order to follow him. This doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to outright ignore him, as you do, if you're still claiming to follow him in other ways. I can understand not following him at all on this basis.

You claim that Zaccheus was able to only give up half his belongings and was saved for it. In doing so, you have misrepresented the text. First, the context of the text I cited:

The Cost of Being a Disciple

25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28 “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? 29 For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, 30 saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

34 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.

“Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

Now the context of your citation:

Zacchaeus the Tax Collector
1 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

If you think this is inconsistent, I'll grant you that and we can both admit that Jesus was a flawed man and not God incarnate. If it's not inconsistent, then Jesus must have referring to Zacchaeus' desire to change his ways, not the specific conditions of his preliminary declaration.

So, Hoops, have you given up all you own in order to be a disciple? Or merely half?

[_Hoops]

...It would seem there is a big difference to Israel between pre and post incarnation.

Actually I like that conclusion -- we ought to insert the "it would seem"
into the Apostles' Creed, etc. Making religion less dogmatic, perhaps.

But the premise is illogical.

Let's say it is day one of the year 1 -- and I am Samuel, the brother
of Joseph, and have also gone to Bethlehem to register for taxation.

I come across Joseph in the crowd and he takes me to a lowly manger
wherein I discover a newborn infant.

"Bow down and worship the Lord God of Israel," my brother demands.

I do so, and he tells me that my repentance has been accepted.

"But what about Martha, my late wife?" I ask, in worried tones.

"It's OK," replies Joseph -- she died BEFORE THE INCARNATION,
so her repentance (with no mention of Jesus) was accepted by
God the Father in Heaven."

And then Joseph adds: "But if she offered up such a repentance,
to YHWH, today, she would be condemned to hell for false prayer."

Makes no sense to me. I cannot find your definition of "repentance"
published in any dictionary -- theological or secular.

"It would seem" that you have overstepped the bounds of proper doctrine.

UD

John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

[_Uncle Dale]

...

John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

No doubt.

But if repentance demands our asserting that Jesus the carpenter's son
is the Only True God, then I suppose we must erase the "Son" part and call
him YHWH, the Heavenly Father of Israel, spoken of throughout the Torah.

Otherwise, we might truthfully say that a genuine repentance can
invoke Israel's God, without any particular mention of Mary's son.

But are you saying that nobody other than evangelical Christians
can honestly repent of anything?

The Bible has God Himself repenting in certain verses, (and I presume
that He is not a member any particular Christian congregation).

UD

[_Hoops]

But if repentance demands our asserting that Jesus the carpenter's son
is the Only True God, then I suppose we must erase the "Son" part and call
him YHWH, the Heavenly Father of Israel, spoken of throughout the Torah.

Indeed. What to do with that. Perhaps Trinitarians have a point.

Otherwise, we might truthfully say that a genuine repentance can
invoke Israel's God, without any particular mention of Mary's son.

Or, perhaps, there is a difference in pre and post incarnation.

But are you saying that nobody other than evangelical Christians
can honestly repent of anything?

No. In fact, what I'm saying is as broad as it can be.

The Bible has God Himself repenting in certain verses, (and I presume
that He is not a member any particular Christian congregation).

Yes, the Bible does tell us this. Which buttresses my position. Repentance is a change of mind, or change of position, or change of intention.

[_Hoops]

A thought as I was reading this: Jesus never claimed to be the one, true god.

Of course He did.

This is especially true in Mark, the oldest and most credible of the gospels.

Your claim is based on what?

In any case, you main thesis as it applies to the OP seems to be that Jesus was capricious about how much he required his disciples to give up in order to follow him.

Nonsense.

This doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to outright ignore him, as you do,

Evidence? Oh, you don't have any. Again. More bluster and blowhard.

You claim that Zaccheus was able to only give up half his belongings and was saved for it.

Here again, you've managed to set a new standard in how wrong you are. How DO you manage?

If you think this is inconsistent, I'll grant you that and we can both admit that Jesus was a flawed man and not God incarnate.

And a new standard is set.

If it's not inconsistent, then Jesus must have referring to Zacchaeus' desire to change his ways, not the specific conditions of his preliminary declaration.

I've made it clear for you. Don't blame me if your bias clouds your thinking.

[_Jersey Girl]

Buff,

If you are seriously wanting discussion of these verses, you need to make a thread for each one for each collection of verses warrants separate discussions. Don't expect people to take these random verses and respond to one or more of them and then field comments by others.

It is asking too much.

for what it's worth, I agree with Hoops about pulling select verses out of context. When you rob the verses of context, you lose all meaning.

That seems to be a code phrase for "I'm uncomfortable living up to what's expressed in this verse, so I prefer to reinterpret until it conforms to my comfort level."

First of all, you didn't identify what "code phrase" you're referring to. And no, none of the comments I posted is a "code phrase" for anything.

It's a suggestion that you get off your lazy ass and organize the verses into separate threads so that people can respond to it without going off on 50K tangents.

Is that more clear?

[_msnobody]

Buffalo stated, “Believers instinctively know that Jesus was full of it about certain subjects. That's why they ignore certain teachings across almost all sects.”

I agree with some of what you've said and disagree as well. I do think many believers neglect to heed certain teachings or take those teachings into account before acting on a matter. Many neglect to study God's word. Many are satisfied with being spoonfed God's word. I'm fairly sure there are churches out there that avoid certain subject matter. I think you've used a very broad brush though. In my lifetime, I've been a member of three different protestant denominations [a somewhat fair representative sample] and I can assure you that these teaching are taught from the pulpit and many believers do actually live these teachings.

I think often times non-believers expect believers to behave as if they are not sinners and when believers fail to meet that expectation, then some non-believers use this as an excuse as to why they reject God's provision for sin. I am going to go so far as to say I've had a few non-believers try to assign the blame to me for why they cannot believe in Christ. I refuse to accept responsibility for a person rejecting Christ. I would however, hopefully, examine my actions to see if I could have or could change my actions.

I think the Scriptures you listed should be put into context and compared with other Scripture.

[_Buffalo]

A thought as I was reading this: Jesus never claimed to be the one, true god.

Of course He did.

This is especially true in Mark, the oldest and most credible of the gospels.

Your claim is based on what?

In any case, you main thesis as it applies to the OP seems to be that Jesus was capricious about how much he required his disciples to give up in order to follow him.

Nonsense.

This doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to outright ignore him, as you do,

Evidence? Oh, you don't have any. Again. More bluster and blowhard.

You claim that Zaccheus was able to only give up half his belongings and was saved for it.

Here again, you've managed to set a new standard in how wrong you are. How DO you manage?

If you think this is inconsistent, I'll grant you that and we can both admit that Jesus was a flawed man and not God incarnate.

And a new standard is set.

If it's not inconsistent, then Jesus must have referring to Zacchaeus' desire to change his ways, not the specific conditions of his preliminary declaration.

I've made it clear for you. Don't blame me if your bias clouds your thinking.

You had one brief moment of clarity where you actually tried to defend your position instead of cramming your fingers in your ears and chanting "nuh uh." Moment's gone.