Did Jesus debate; were he and Paul ever harsh?

Yeah, we can't use the "That was Jesus" line. Stephen was just as harsh with those who ended up stoning him to death. Paul cursed one of his detractors with blindness, and called others with various names.

I think we are called to be very direct, and very much non-politically correct. When we blunt our message, soften it, it changes the message whether we want it to or not.

 

Havensdad (and Havensdad only)...

I want to step into this debate. Will you debate me?

I have no Hebrew or Greek training, but I don't see that as a problem, I am a person on the street. My perspective, my point of view, my representation will not be that of a scholar, seminary student, Bible translator, Bible collector, Bible reader, church member, or church staff (paid or otherwise). My perspective will be that of the un-churched, the non-Christian, the anti-Christian, the Christian wounded by some church member or staff, a church member or staff from the church across the street (that place . . . that people, that diabolical doctrinal pit of despair), and the average person on the street going from here to there (a place they should have been 15 minutes ago).

As a person of the street, the person you should be learning to reach, I will not be required to provide any scripture references, or if I do, I can apply whatever interpretation I care to use, and of course I am free to use whatever anti-Christian source, phrase, or comment I care to use. Oh, and I also plan to roll my eyes, look at my watch, tell my dog to pee on your leg, and spit in your eye.

You, on the other hand, a Christian, must provide a scripture reference (consistently from the same English translation) for every statement, phrase, or word you write.

You can use whatever sources you care to use—just don’t tell me what they are. I don’t care. I don’t want to hear Dr. Bob said this, or Dr. Mohler wrote that, or my best friend in Greek 101 (third row, seat 3C) told me you are ridiculous and nothing but a lackey. You and the two Bibles (one for you, one for me), my opinion of you, and my own private experiences (that I will never tell you about) are the only sources I care about. You can exchange Personal Messages with all 10,553 BB members—but don’t tell me about them or what they told you to say because you are the only Jesus I hear and see.



Havensdad (and Havensdad only)... Do you accept the conditions of the debate?

I assume you will, or else disappear from sight, telling your family, church members, and tuition funders that you give up and want to go serve in Afganistan where there is a need for the harsh and abrasive.

Whatever, those are your problems. I don’t care about your problems. I don’t want to hear about your problems. I want you out of my face.

But if you leave my face—leave this debate—you lose the debate. No questions, No buts, No howevers, No ifs.

And you have to answer to … well, that’s between you and Him.

Ready—Set—Go!!!



To begin: Please provide the scripture references (Book of the Bible, Chapter, Verse(s), and English translation) for the following statements, phrases, and words in your last post—our first contact.

Paragraph One
1.1 "there is no denying that not only Jesus, Paul and Peter, pulled no punches,"

1.2 "it was a general attitude of the early church"

1.3 "They did not intentionally provoke people"

1.4 "again and again we see their plain spoken and direct confrontational methods"

1.5 "confrontational methods getting them scourged, beaten, and killed"

1.6 "friendship evangelism, and effeminate methodology . . . would never have resulted in the harsh treatment that we see poured out on Jesus and the disciples"

Paragraph Two
2.1 "The fact is, the soft-spoken, effeminate Jesus portrayed in most movies about His life, are a thing of myth"

2.2 "Jesus, John, Paul, and Peter, yelled at people on the streets, calling them things like "vipers" and "enemies of all righteousness," not to mention sons of murderers and disciples of hell."

This complex statement needs to be broken down by speaker and person spoken to.

2.2a Jesus
2.2b John
2.2c Paul
2.2d Peter

2.2aa "calling people on the streets 'vipers' " [what are vipers?]
2.2bb "calling people on the streets 'enemies of all righteousness' " [what is righteousness?]
2.2cc "calling people on the streets 'sons of murderers' " [when will I die?]
2.2dd "calling people on the streets 'disciples of hell' " [where is hell?] [that is where I will be if I am late for work again!!! Get out of here!!!]

Paragraph Three
3.1 "There is no question from scripture that Jesus spoke the truth"

3.2 "There is no question from scripture that Jesus . . . openly rebuked those who denied [the truth that Jesus spoke] [(better still) whatever Jesus spoke]"

3.3 "He was not always gentle"

3.4 "He was not always gentle . . . with the money changers"

3.5 "the general thing we see in scripture, is that He was gentle with the humble, broken and repentant, and that He was harsh with those opposed Him and the gospel; the proud and arrogant."

This complex statement needs to be broken down by communication style and and person spoken to.

Communication Style
3.5a "Jesus was gentle with the humble"
3.5b "Jesus was gentle with the broken"
3.5c "Jesus was gentle with the repentant"
3.5d "Jesus was harsh with those who opposed Him"
3.5e "Jesus was harsh with those who opposed the gospel"
3.5f "Jesus was harsh with the proud"
3.5g “Jesus was harsh with the arrogant"

. . .

Havensdad (and Havensdad only)...

Let me know.

...Bob

 

Luke2427...

I do not want to debate you. I do not want to talk with you. In fact, when I click the "submit" button below, I am going to block you.

Oh, do you know what submit means?

Bob...

 

Luke =< I am your father...> Whoops, wrong movie...

Anyway, you are wrong. I'll just say it point blank.

It is one thing to argue vigorously for some point, but there is not a hint of suggestion in the Scriptures that says that we are ever to be harsh or something along those lines in our debating techniques.

This passage probably says it best, and simply:

A soft answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Prov 15:1 (ESV)

I see Jesus being "forceful" but not harsh. I see Him being the "alpha male" even to kings and leaders, but he never disrespected them. I see a Savior who is the King of all kings and Lord of all lords, but he allowed people to walk away from Him if they disagreed. Jesus was no wimp. If anything, He was THE strongest man who ever lived (in a test of wills, spiritual sense, force of nature, etc.) but He held that great strength in check, and though He could have crushed people with a single word, He never did, even when He probably should have.

I've watched your style here on the board, and you often have some great points to make, but the way you make them alienates everyone from them, and also almost immediately turns what might otherwise be a great debate and discussion thread into another fiasco where one man fights dirty against another just to save face.

Bring your best stuff, but leave out the pejoratives, personal attacks, and other devices that tend to get one's dander up. Also, speaking in the 3rd person tends to not personalize the arguments quite so much.

 

The one difference between Jesus calling people what He called them and you doing likewise is that He was correct 100% of the time. You, and the rest of us, may have made an incorrect decision based on less than total understanding. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Ephesians 4:14-15 That we from now on be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ:



Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Ephesians 4:15
Verse 15. But speaking the truth in love. Marg., being sincere. The translation in the text is correct--literally, truthing in love --alhqeuonteV. Two things are here to be noted:
(1.) The truth is to be spoken--the simple, unvarnished truth. This is the way to avoid error, and this is the way to preserve others from error. In opposition to all trick, and art, and cunning, and fraud, and deception, Christians are to speak the simple truth, and nothing but the truth. Every statement which they make should be unvarnished truth; every promise which they make should be true; every representation which they make of the sentiments of others should be simple truth. Truth is the representation of things as they are; and there is no virtue that is more valuable in a Christian than the love of simple truth.

(2.) The second thing is, that the truth should be spoken in love. There are other ways of speaking truth. It is sometimes spoken in a harsh, crabbed, sour manner, which does nothing but disgust and offend. When we state truth to others, it should be with love to their souls, and with a sincere desire to do them good. When we admonish a brother of his faults, it should not be in a harsh and unfeeling manner, but in love. Where a minister pronounces the awful truth of God about depravity, death, the judgment, and future woe, it should be in love. It should not be done in a harsh and repulsive manner; it should not be done as if he rejoiced that men were in danger of hell, or as if he would like to pass the final sentence; it should not be with indifference, or in a tone of superiority. And in like manner, if we go to convince one who is in error, we should approach him in love. We should not dogmatize, or denounce, or deal out anathemas. Such things only repel. He has done about half his work in convincing another of error, who has first convinced him that he LOVES him; and if he does not do that, he may argue to the hour of his death, and make no progress in convincing him.

 

It's strange...when I'm blunt it's usually followed by an "ad hominem" accusation

 

I am going to stick up for Luke on this.

While it may be true we should pay attention to those who have spent much time in the Bible and prayer, the fact someone is a Dr., a scholar, a translator, etc. should not be the defining factor in whether we accept or dismiss what is being said by them. Should we listen intently at their understanding of Scripture? Yes. Do we take their understanding of Scripture as Scripture itself? No.

As with any human being, we eat the meat and spit out the bones.

To Luke I will say I hope you do not dismiss JoJ's knowledge due to the fact his theology differs from yours. It sure sounded like that in your post, that you will listen to Dr. Bob and The Archangel, but not John. That is not having an open heart and mind for the truth. I have gleaned truth from all three, and have disagreed with all three at times (some more times than others)....

 

Did you really mean to say that?

 

I would have to admit that both our Lord Jesus Christ and Paul could have been considered harsh in some passages, but neither was ever arrogant. And Luke here is neither our Lord, nor a Paul in any equation. Both our Lord, and Paul were meek and full of humility. Luke does not possess nor employ either of these.

He, as this thread, that revolves around his arrogance, are becoming ad nauseam.

 

LOL! You are a funny guy!

 

I assumed Dr. Bob as making a joke, rather than a genuine point regarding Gal 2:11.

 

And the result of that confrontation was that Peter and Paul remained loving servants of the Lord -- edifying each other and each other's work.

As I see it (and this is in partial response to webdog as well) especially here on the BB people often make a blunt or harsh (call it critical) comment about some issue. I do that all the time myself, so I'm not immune. But added with that very pointed critical comment comes an extra word or two that changes the game and makes the entire affair, well, personal.

The trigger is sarcasm... And ad hominem attacks (seems to be our favorite word these days)... And perjoratives... And just plain meanness that is intended to tear down instead of respect and build up...

There are always ways to say something, even something critical, that do not automatically press the conversation into a place where "I win -- you loose". When the "I win -- you loose" idea comes into play, all of the above personal issues come to bear, and that is what people react to.

Perhaps a couple of quotes from other threads will serve as examples. I'll not attribute the quotes, and I'm just picking at random from threads I've read on the board, equal opportunity stuff. I've even included myself in the mix...

 

glfrederick...

Excellent post. You obviously have been thinking about this for some time. I think we all can use your wise counsel.

...Bob

 

Thats cool, Im impressed ....little latin thrown in at the end ....
"He, as this thread, that revolves around his arrogance, are becoming ad nauseam."

This is how Christian Brothers are to treat each other? Hm, noted.