Where in the Bible does Jesus tell people to be good?

[Wootah]

Where in the Bible does Jesus tell people to be good?

[Wootah]

Where in the Bible does Jesus tell people to be good?

Asks a Christian, startlingly enough...

If you don't know, or are implying Jesus doesn't tell us to do so...what does this imply about him and his supposed status or character, especially as a teacher of morals?

I'm allowed to ask whatever I like. I dont deny the contest but sometimes I just want to go back to basics and question everything.

People that think he was just a good teacher are sorely mistaken about his role i think.

[Divine Insight]

Well I have no idea the intent of the originator of the OP, but I can certainly see a reason, and my reason would be to demonstrate that Christianity has nothing to do with morality, other than to encourage folks to give up on the chase.

I actually see your vantage point. I saw this vantage point clearly when I was a Christian. And so did many people in my church. The idea was that we can never resist sin on our own. Therefore the only way to be "saved" is to accept Jesus as our savior.

But it really doesn't stop there. The idea then becomes that once we ask Jesus to come into our life, he will then become our "LORD" (or co-pilot) in life and therefore guide as from ever sinning again.

The Bible even says that once we are born of God (or in Christ) we can no longer sin. Sinning after this simply isn't possible. This is also what many Christians mean by being "born again in Christ". They are not born of God, or of the Holy Spirit. But then, according to the Bible they should not be able to sin after this.

Therein lies the problem. Christendom in general has made it extremely taboo for anyone to ever claim that they are no "sin free" or no longer sin. Therefore they basically reject the idea that someone who has been born again in Christ no longer sins. So what happens is that even those who have accepted Christ as their savior still continue to sin, and continue to ask Christ for forgiveness of their continual life of sin.

So it goes full-circle and come right back to being about morality again. It's not the born-again Christians have given up the chase of trying to be perfect, but they still continue to sin and ask for forgiveness.

So in the end, it's still comes back to being about sin (or morality) and if not a chase to be free of sin, at least a continued lifetime of feeling guilty about not being able to stop sinning.

And of course this whole thing boils down to Christians viewing every little thing that isn't "perfect behavior" as being "sin". And this then leads them to feeling guilty about just about everything they do, because nothing they do will ever be perfect.

So instead of being a lifetime of chasing after not sinning at all, instead it become a lifetime of feeling constantly guilty about not being able to be perfect.

So I'm not so sure if that's any better. And it still boils down to morality. It's all about never being "good enough" for God. NEVER!

It's the ultimate guilt trip.

[marco]

I do not know the intention, but I do not need to know what the intention may be, in order to give an answer, if I have one. When one asks the intention of a question, it sort of gives the impression they would like to dodge the issue. In other words, if you have the answer, then give it, and not worry about what the intention may be.

Life isn't all that simple, Realworldjack.

Does the question require just a verse reference to the appropriate comment?

Does the question seek where in Christ's speeches we can deduce he's advising moral behaviour?

Does it refer to the line on perfection and so is contrasting mere good with absolute goodness. Here the argument is about the requirement of the superlative rather than the simple positive.

Is it simply a veiled declaration that Jesus never said any such thing and further discussion will be about refuting any positive answer?

In general your advice to answer regardless of intention is fine. The conclusions drawn from a simple answer to a simple question are more problematic. However there's a lot to be said for the honest, simple life.

I find lengthy replies a tax on my tolerance so I'll reply piecemeal.

[marco]

GOOD GRIEF! Here we are again, insisting on what Jesus meant, when on the other hand we argue, that we cannot even know what he may have said. If we cannot know what he may have said, then we cannot know what he may have meant, concerning something he may have never said.

Can we draw a veil over this recurring leitmotif in your various posts to me?
I said we cannot know the precise words of Jesus since they were written down much later. Human memory is a fragile affair but yes, we can get the gist of his meaning. Sometimes it is important to know what the exact format was.

"I tell you today you shall be with me in Paradise" admits of two entirely different interpretations, each begetting its own theology. Did Christ just say? "You'll be with me in heaven today" ?

When we are just discussing the flavour of what Christ said or meant, then we must make do with reports, provided we don't claim our faith owes its direction to the exact format used. I don't believe in the ramifications of Christianity so It doesn't really matter a whit to me whether Christ said: be good, be happy, be pleasant, be worried... but as a reader of the possibly fictional presentation, I can discuss what is reported. I am not being inconsistent in my views. If you wish to play the game that all Christ's words are hearsay, that's fine with me. However, in these discussions we pretend there was a preacher, Christ; we pretend he said what's reported.

The discussion about what is actual truth is for another Sunday. I personally think it is dubious that we have Christ's actual words but, as I said, in these chats it makes little odds.

[marco]

When we take all of what Jesus is said to say, along with the rest of what the Biblical authors have to say, what he is saying is, "good isn't good enough, perfection is required, and you are not even good. Therefore, you should look at giving up your attempts at being good in order to appease God, and beg for mercy." This is what the whole of the Bible is concerned with, which is, giving up our efforts to appease God.

Well here you've departed from the question you thought was simple. We are now deep in a strange theology that perhaps resembles Calvinism. It is you who seem to be dwelling on a single reported line: "Nobody is good except the Father," and this is true if one associates an absolute meaning to the word. Jesus is observing that the totality of goodness resides with God. Meanwhile on planet earth we can enjoy a good meal, without assuming God made it; we can wish someone good night, without suggesting perfection. Christ is toying with semantics, not offering moral guidance.

As for "Be ye perfect" - he's moved to hyperbole.

In his saner moments he commends good deeds. I haven't heard of the BAD Samaritan - we get from Christ it was the GOOD Samaritan.

I suggest your interpretation of what Christ advised goes against the vast store of instruction he gave - and we needn't here know his verbatim words!

[Tcg]

Where in the Bible does Jesus tell people to be good?

In Luke chapter 6:

33 If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 16 by Tcg]

for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Just like when he drowned the world or killed all the first born of Egypt.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 16 by Tcg]

for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Just like when he drowned the world or killed all the first born of Egypt.

It certainly does sound like the Jesus character had never heard of the earlier exploits of his dad. It's almost as if his followers pasted his story onto an earlier religion that wasn't related in any way.

Of course the author of Revelation would return the favor and paste a blood thirsty Jesus onto the stories of a merciful one.

It's enough to cause one to suspect that the Bible is not much more than a hodgepodge of stories that could have used a much more talented editor.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 12 by Divine Insight]

GOOD GRIEF! Am I mistaken? Or, are you the one who started the thread, "How Can Christianity Be About Morality?"

In fact, you did such a good job there, I could do nothing but agree with you. However, here you say,

So in the end, it's still comes back to being about sin (or morality)

So which is it? Is Christianity about morality? Or is it, "How can Christianity Be About Morality?" Because I am telling you, you did a great job of explaining how Christianity could not possibly be about morality, and now you seem to be saying, that it is?

Well let's see.

I actually see your vantage point. I saw this vantage point clearly when I was a Christian.

Whoa? Wait a minute? You were a Christian? Do you mind my asking when this was, how old you were when you made the decision to become a Christian, and how old you may have been when you rejected?

But it really doesn't stop there. The idea then becomes that once we ask Jesus to come into our life, he will then become our "LORD" (or co-pilot) in life and therefore guide as from ever sinning again.

You would be right to say this would be some sort of "idea" but it could not be an "idea" that would come from reading the Bible, because we are certainly never promised we will be free from sin.

The Bible even says that once we are born of God (or in Christ) we can no longer sin.

Exactly where does it say this? Because I am thinking it says, "if we say, we have no sin, we deceive ourselves."

This is also what many Christians mean by being "born again in Christ".

"What many Christians mean" would not have a thing in the world to do with it, unless this is what the Bible actually says.

They are not born of God, or of the Holy Spirit. But then, according to the Bible they should not be able to sin after this.

No, I'm not thinking this is what the Bible says? In fact, here is what Paul says, and I believe it is in the Bible,

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

So then, I cannot see how one could come away with the idea that, "we should not be able to sin after this?"

Therein lies the problem. Christendom in general has made it extremely taboo for anyone to ever claim that they are no "sin free" or no longer sin. Therefore they basically reject the idea that someone who has been born again in Christ no longer sins. So what happens is that even those who have accepted Christ as their savior still continue to sin, and continue to ask Christ for forgiveness of their continual life of sin.

The thing is, when one joins the Church, they are to confess, "I am a sinner." Not, "I use to be a sinner." This means, according to the Bible, there is forgiveness of sin, past, present, and future. Therefore, we continue to confess our sins to God, and one another, and ask forgiveness of such sins from God, and one another, because we understand, that we are sinners.

This seems to demonstrate, that as Christians we have let go after the chase after morality, and rather attempt to do good works, understanding that no amount of good works, could ever cause us to become moral, or to be sin free.

With this being the case, it is religion, and others who are tied to some sort of moral code, who are enslaved to law. Christians, are not under law, but under Grace, which means we can help those in need, not being concerned as to whether our help, may break some sort of moral code.

So it goes full-circle and come right back to being about morality again.

So then, the wonderful job you did in the other post, describing how Christianity could not possibly have to do with morality, was in error, because in reality it, "comes right back to being about morality again" after all? I believe it was you who said in that OP,

The above criteria has absolutely NOTHING to do with a person's morality.

I agreed with you here, but for some reason you seem to want to change your mind. I wonder why that is? Just kidding. I understand exactly why.

It's not the born-again Christians have given up the chase of trying to be perfect, but they still continue to sin and ask for forgiveness.

Not only have I "given up the chase of trying to be perfect", I have given up the chase after morality, which is exactly the reason I understand that I will continue to have to ask for forgiveness, and not only from God.

So in the end, it's still comes back to being about sin (or morality) and if not a chase to be free of sin, at least a continued lifetime of feeling guilty about not being able to stop sinning.

Whoa! Wait a minute! Before you said,

The Bible even says that once we are born of God (or in Christ) we can no longer sin. Sinning after this simply isn't possible.

Now you say,

if not a chase to be free of sin

So which is it? Does the Bible say, "it is impossible to sin?" Or, does it say, "we need to at least, chase after being free from sin?" I'm a thinking it is more like this.

We are not sinners because we sin, rather we sin, because we are sinners.

My question to you is, do you find yourself always living up to your own expectations? Or, are there times where you are lacking?

If you admit that there are times where you are lacking, do you feel guilty about this? The fact of the matter would be, if you admit there would be times you are lacking, it would not matter in the least, if you FELT guilty, the point would be, you are guilty, of not living up to your own expectations.

In the same way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my feeling guilty, (because I will assure you, I never go on feelings). Rather, it is because I understand that I am guilty.

So then, whether the expectations are my own, or whether they may be from God, I do not go on how I feel, but rather upon the reality of the expectations, and feelings do not enter the equation.

All this means is, I do not feel guilty because I cannot stop sinning. Rather, I am guilty because I understand that I cannot live up to any sort of moral code, whether it be from God, or my own. Whether it be called sin, or failure. Either way, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with how I may feel, because I have learned to get past how I may feel, to the reality that I am guilty of not living up to any moral code, whether it may be my own, or made by others.

And of course this whole thing boils down to Christians viewing every little thing that isn't "perfect behavior" as being "sin". And this then leads them to feeling guilty about just about everything they do, because nothing they do will ever be perfect.

Listen! It is not my fault concerning what you were exposed to as a Christian. However, I am not concerned with every little thing that I do that isn't "perfect behavior" as being "sin", because it is not the sins I commit, that cause me to be a sinner. Rather, I sin, because I am a sinner, which means I certainly do not entertain any sort of feelings of guilt.

In other words, when I sin, (not if) it is not as though I am shocked, because it comes natural to me. Why? Well because I am a sinner. So, why would I waste my time in "feelings of guilt" when I have clearly confessed, I am a sinner?

So instead of being a lifetime of chasing after not sinning at all, instead it become a lifetime of feeling constantly guilty about not being able to be perfect.

Again, I cannot help the type of Christianity you were exposed to as a Christian, but what you describe here would certainly be foreign to what the Bible has to say.

In fact, the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about, "feelings", and it certainly has nothing to say about, "feelings of guilt." Rather, the Bible clearly proclaims us a guilty, whether we feel that guilt or not, and we are to get past this fact, and it is not by attempting to remedy this situation by our efforts.

This has nothing to do with Christianity. We all as humans have "feelings of guilt" from time to time. But the fact of the matter is, either we are guilty, or we are not. If we find that we are guilty, then we need to deal with the actual guilt, and not the, feelings.

Now back to Christianity. Christianity does not deal with, "feelings of guilt." Rather, as already stated, it proclaims us all as, guilty. However, according to the Bible, that guilt has been dealt with, which means there would be no room for, "feelings of guilt."

Again, I cannot help the type of Christianity you were exposed to, but if you were on some sort of chase after perfection, then it would seem, you were exposed to law, when the Bible clearly explains that Christians have been freed from law. In other words, I am not attempting to be perfected by law, or my own efforts.

So I'm not so sure if that's any better.

Yeah, what you are describing would be far worse, and there are Christians who have turned Christianity into religion. In other words, it is all about law. However, as we have seen, Christianity is about being freed from law. If I have been freed from law, then I am freed from guilt. I am am freed from guilt, then I have been freed from, "feelings of guilt", because according to Paul,

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

In the end, if I have been set free from law, then I have been freed from the chase after morality, (perfection).

And it still boils down to morality.

If this is truly the conclusion you have come to, could you please return to the thread, "How Can Christianity Be About Morality", and explain this?

However, I am not surprised at all by your change in tune, and expected as much. In other words, you did a wonderful job explaining things, on the other thread, and you were correct. But, I knew this would come, because you actually need Christianity to be about morality.

In other words, if Christianity is not about morality, then it would not be like the religions of the world, and could no longer be compared to them.

So then, while you you clearly understand that Christianity cannot possibly be about morality, seeing as how you expounded it out so well on the other thread, you now realize, this is not a good move, and you are now forced to find a way to being it back to morality.

It's all about never being "good enough" for God. NEVER!

Here, you are back on track again, and are exactly right! However, the remedy is not to keep on trying, but to rather give up on the effort, as you explained in the other post.

The whole theme of the Bible is to let go of our efforts in toward morality, and grab a hold of the promise of God to save. In this way, we are free from law that can only condemn, and we are free from any sort of "feelings of guilt", because the guilt is dealt with, in the promise.

So then you were correct to originally ask, "How Can Christianity Be About Morality" because it cannot, if it was never intended to be. As we think about this, Christians are not tied to any sort o moral code, while those who adhere to religion, and even those who may not adhere to any religion at all, who are attempting to live up to some sort of moral code, (no matter where it may come from) are enslaved to law.

[1213]

Where in the Bible does Jesus tell people to be good?

I think this means that we should be good:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

After all, "good tree� produces “good fruit".

Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree can't produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn't grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
Matt. 7:17-20

But, good can be very subjective idea, that is why I think Bible speaks more specifically about how people should live. (For example, don’t murder…).