Would Jesus be banned from most Forums?

[Daddieslittlehelper]

Matthew 17:17
“You unbelieving and perverse generation,� Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.�


Matthew 23:33
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Matthew 7:6
“Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Matthew 15:26
He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.�

Woes on the Pharisees and the Experts in the Law

37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.

39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. 40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.

43 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.

44 “Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.�

45 One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.�

46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49 Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50 Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.�


Serious question.

[Daddieslittlehelper]

That´s not true, Jesus in the begining of his ministery annoyed people, and I think it´s fair to say he knew what was comming from the beggining of it. .

If you read my words carefully you'll see I ddin't say "he didn't annoy people" from teh beginning of his ministry, I said he showed "relative restraint" (relatative to the royal hammering he gave at that final temple confrontation). I did not say that he did NOT know what was coming early on in his ministry; especially as attempts on his life started, pretty much from as soon as he started preaching.

There is nothing in my statement that is (as you put it) "not true" looking at it scripturally.


JW

Well I really do not want to get bogged down in nit picking points, but its the implications I called untrue. You implied "when Jesus knew"- and I argued he always did, hence it's an untrue implication you make. I also do not think Jesus said what everyone was already thinking.

Again 'he called a spade a spade' isnt really the issue- Jesus Attacked alot of what the Rabbis held to be correct behaviour- like the oral Torah Mark 7. Agian I consider what you implied to be simplistic and untrue!

I could go on but I'll stop there!

[JehovahsWitness]

Again 'he called a spade a spade' isnt really the issue- Jesus Attacked alot of what the Rabbis held to be correct behaviour- like the oral Torah Mark 7. Agian I consider what you implied to be simplistic and untrue!

I could go on but I'll stop there!

This "issue" is whether he would have been banned from modern day forums, and I have answered that question, yes, probably. The additional information, that in light of what we know about those he targetted his comments where fully justified, is I admit an opinion based comment, but one contextually sound.

I could go on but I'll stop there!

Very Wise decision on your part.

JW

[Sapphire]

[Replying to Daddieslittlehelper]

Jesus is "God with us". Read The book of John chapter 1.

Isaiah 7:13-14
13. Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14. Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

And Isaiah's prophecy confirmed in the New Testament

Matthew 1:23
23. “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,� which is translated, “God with us.�

Yes. Jesus is the Immanuel in the book of Isaiah.

Colossians 2:8-10
8. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10. and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

1 John 5:7
7. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the *Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

The *Word is Jesus.

John 1:1- The Eternal Word
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

[Daddieslittlehelper]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]



Oh really.

I dis-agree with you. and stay with my former statement what you posted was untrue. I stopped before to do you a faviour, but I can continue if you want me to.

[Daddieslittlehelper]

[Replying to Daddieslittlehelper]

Jesus is "God with us". Read The book of John chapter 1.

I have read it many times and most of the introduction of john is inncorrect ergo False and therefore cannot be the word of God which is- truth.

Isaiah 7:13-14
13. Then he said, “Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? 14. Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

An incorrect translation. The word used is Madien not Virgin. At least you have the Correct translation that the women will call him "Immanuel" And As I pointed out Before, Jesus is given the name- Joshua not, "Immanuel".

You, as many others seeks to say Immaunel means "God is with us" Humanity; when actually it means, God is with us 'The Jews'

7.14 The Lord will give you a sign in any case: It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.


Isaiah 9. 5 For a son has been born for us, a son has been given to us, and dominion has been laid on his shoulders; and this is the name he has been given, 'Wonder-Counsellor, Mighty-God, Eternal-Father, Prince-of-Peace'

6 to extend his dominion in boundless peace, over the throne of David and over his kingdom to make it secure and sustain it in fair judgement and integrity. From this time onwards and for ever, the jealous love of Yahweh Sabaoth will do this.

The immanuel is Born for the Jews and is to Rule over Israel.

The 'US' is the JEWS. As the Kingdom the Immauel Rules over is The jewish Kingdom of David.

And Isaiah's prophecy confirmed in the New Testament

Matthew 1:23
23. “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,� which is translated, “God with us.�

Utterly False, Matthew Changes the text to say Virgin, and Also to say "They" will call him when the actual text reads She his mother will call him- Ergo this text is not about Jesus! And is changed by the gospel writer to try and make it about Jesus- You cant change the prophecies. Gods word is truth and what is written in Matthew, is a lie!

Yes. Jesus is the Immanuel in the book of Isaiah.

No he is not and cannot be

Colossians 2:8-10
8. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10. and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

1 John 5:7
7. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the *Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.


The *Word is Jesus.

I could really care less what other people think, what you post here is not the Word of God. Why dont you actually listen to Jesus the person you claim to follow:-

John 17.17-19 Jesus by his own statement is not the word!

John 1:1- The Eternal Word
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That is untrue and should not be in the bible- it's johns or probably more likly his deciples opinion.

[OnceConvinced]

On these forums Jesus would not be able to meet the standards of civility that we require. He would also be continually warned for preaching as he was the type of guy who expected everyone to act and think like him. He was never open to debate and just accused people of being fools or or the devil if they disagreed with him. His arrogance would not be appreciated here.

Alas many Christians come to this site using Jesus as a rolemodel. They come in preaching, making accusations and insults and act like they are trying to clear out the temple, hurling over furniture and trying to destroy things. They rarely last long.

Best not use Jesus as a remodel when it comes to a website were high standards of behavior are required.

[marco]

To answer the question set forth above: Yes, I think Jesus would be banned from these forums. He would not only be non-mainstream, but he would be considered outrageous to most of the people here.

I'm not sure that he hasn't appeared incognito. Maybe he came unto his own and his own received him not.
He was eloquent, if his biographers are good reporters. I think he'd weep over some of what passes for expressions of his word. There is at least one poster with whom he'd have trouble, so perhaps the divine patience would be sorely tried.

But hey! It would be nice to chat with him and find out what he REALLY said.