Be ye goats or sheep?

[TangledWeb]

==============================================================================================

I have stated elsewhere that imprecision and inconsistency are unfortunate but prominent hallmarks of Christendom.

==============================================================================================

In Post #19 the following was offered [emphasis added]:


Let’s take a look then, as suggested.

==============================================================================================

First of all, there is no mention of believers and unbelievers in the passage referred to (Matthew 25:31-46). The idea has to be read into the passage to make it conform to certain belief systems.

Therefore the following statement made in Post #1 has no foundation within Matthew 25:31-46, and is a superimposition.: “Jesus separates the believers from the non believing and compares them to sheep and goats respectively in Matthew 25:31-46.”

==============================================================================================

Secondly, looking at the passage carefully, we see (discern) the following:
- Jesus says that some people are classed as sheep (and called blessed of His Father) for = because they had done something significant:
--- a causative action was involved – they are categorised as sheep and blessed as a direct result of their actions;
- God had prepared a kingdom way back; it was awaiting people who would prove to be righteous according to the nominated test;
- The righteous had been identified by that test, and would now have their allotted reward;
- The people labelled as unrighteous were so labelled for = because they had not done something:
--- as a result of not doing something – a causative action (or lack thereof) was involved once again.

That is what we see when we look.

==============================================================================================

“Taking a look at what the texts says give better comprehension, yes?”

Demonstrably so.

Once again I strongly suggest that to make Bible passages say what they don’t say, to protect cherished beliefs from challenge, could be fraught with danger.

==============================================================================================

Sir, do you not consider the righteous to be the believers which are the sheep?

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #21:

Sir, do you not consider the righteous to be the believers which are the sheep?

I suggest (and will demonstrate why) that the question above is symptomatic of the way church-goers are trained to have superficial perspectives instead of considering “the whole counsel of God”. (Acts 20:27) Superficiality is a great tool for manipulating emotions and thereby promoting allegiance to causes, belief systems, individuals and organisations. Some of those allegiances have been (and still are) clearly evident within CH.

A few comments and questions of clarification may help expose and dent the particular aspect expressed above.

==============================================================================================

Jesus likens His followers in our present period of history, to sheep. (Matthew 26:31, Mark 14:27, John 10:11, John 10:14-15, John 10:27)

But note: He uses the term “sheep” to refer to the nation of Israel, as well. (Matthew 10:6)

Jesus also states in John 10:16 that He had sheep that were of another fold. That is normally understood to refer no non-Jews. That idea is supported by an important prophetic picture in one of the God-ordained Feasts of Israel. That incredibly important prophetic picture is a signature example of God’s declaring the end from the beginning. It glorifies God greatly. But have you ever been taught what that major glorification of God is?

==============================================================================================

Consider also: Does Jesus ever liken certain people in Old Testament times to sheep? Do Old Testament people therefore miss out? How are believes defined in those times? And how does that definition relate to the Holy Laws that God imposed on Israel (with their agreement)?

==============================================================================================

Matthew 25:31-32 (NIV) [[emphasis added]: 31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

The stadium where this all happens must be a large one, to accommodate all those people. And how will they be sheltered? How will they be fed? And what a logistical nightmare it will be to get them all there. How many boats, planes, buses, trains, will it take to transport them? And how long will it take? Especially considering the throng will include resurrected people – won’t it?

==============================================================================================

And what of the people still alive when Jesus returns? Are they to be killed and sent to Heaven or Hell? What about young children? What about babies – baptised and unbaptised? What about the multitude of babies in the womb on the point of birth?

Or could it be that those who are alive at that time perhaps live on instead? If so, what of them? Faith will no longer be an issue in that scenario. (2 Corinthians 5:7)

==============================================================================================

Sir, do you not consider the righteous to be the believers which are the sheep?

Would it be presumptuous to suggest that the question may need a little refinement?

==============================================================================================

 

[TangledWeb]

==============================================================================================

Post #21:


I suggest (and will demonstrate why) that the question above is symptomatic of the way church-goers are trained to have superficial perspectives instead of considering “the whole counsel of God”. (Acts 20:27) Superficiality is a great tool for manipulating emotions and thereby promoting allegiance to causes, belief systems, individuals and organisations. Some of those allegiances have been (and still are) clearly evident within CH.

This type of insult is why I stay away from certain people on forums because you could have answered the question without doing this.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

I find the response in Post #23 to be both puzzling and enlightening:

This type of insult is why I stay away from certain people on forums because you could have answered the question without doing this.

Readers will note that in Post #22 (to which Post #23 was a reply), I deliberately did not name any names. That was done so that it would be clear that I was not being personal.

The rest of the Post simply highlighted the shallowness (inadequacy) of the general level of teaching within Christendom – a shallowness which leads people to innocently ask questions based on what they have been taught – questions that seek support for that teaching, but are not necessarily focusing on what a passage under consideration actually says.

My final statement (question) was an attempt to make a polite, impersonal point regarding the adequacy of the question in Post #21, in the light of the broader information that the asker of the question seemed to have lacked. A “Yes” from me would not necessarily have been appropriate when considering all stages of history. A “No” from me, while being the technically correct answer, could have become an excuse for some people to accuse me of not believing the Gospel, or some such.

No insult was intended. My apologies if my intention was misunderstood.

==============================================================================================

 

[TangledWeb]

It might be that your perception of that shallowness is the actual problem in that you already have a faulty opinion to begin with on general Christianity as you wrote above. I accept your apology.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Jesus separates the believers from the non believing and compares them to sheep and goats respectively in Matthew 25:31-46. It might lead some individuals to think Jesus makes them a sheep because of their works but surprise surpise he goes on to tell them that the righteous asked him Lord Lord when did we do those things?

That wrong. The righteous didn't say "when did we do those things". They knew perfectly well when they did good to "these least of my brethren". What they said is "when did we see you [the Lord Jesus Christ]" sick, in prison and so forth. What surprised them is that the good that they did was done for and to Jesus. And since you got that wrong the rest of the story you tell is off the scriptural track and going down a different road. I know I've been blunt and it may bother you but the passage just does not say what you say.

You see friends, the righteous did not strive to do works to gain entry into heaven because a goat cannot make himself into a sheep. Without faith a goat is a goat.

Galatians 3:25-27 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

A sheep has the Lord God as his father and the goats have Satan as their father so which do you have? It's either or and not both because you cannot be a shoat or a gheep or waiver back and forth from one day to the next. Do you believe in God as your Father and if you do then you are a sheep and hear his voice and he will leave the other 99 to rescue you when you stray.

Who is your father then dear friends is it God or Satan? If you answer God then surely you will have eternal life because you are a sheep because God will not let anything pluck his sheep from his hand.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #25:
It might be that your perception of that shallowness is the actual problem in that you already have a faulty opinion to begin with on general Christianity as you wrote above.

I understand that it is difficult for members of Christendom in general to acknowledge that the multiplicity of denominations, and the multiplicity of contradictory beliefs, spring from shallow interpretations of Bible revelation. I once had to face that myself. But it is indeed so. (Apart from denominations that openly confess to placing “tradition” above the Bible, that is.) In the past, people have made up beliefs based on a superficial reading of a subset of Scripture, and their followers now continue that practice, and extend it to other Scripture as necessary to defend those beliefs – even to the extent of ignoring statements of Scripture that are deemed threatening.

A pointed example of accepted (safe) superficiality will follow.

==============================================================================================

Continued...

 

[atpollard]

A pointed example of accepted (safe) superficiality will follow.

==============================================================================================

Continued...

No it won’t.
This isn’t my first rodeo and past experience has shown that I would die if I fasted until the promised “continued” materialized.
You will respond to a bunny trail with some personal pontification heavy on opinion but noticeably void of supporting evidence just like the above post.
Time will tell if I am a “false prophet” or not.

 

[Pedrito]

...Continued

Post #27 (me) A pointed example of accepted (safe) superficiality will follow.

Post #28 (atpollard): No it won’t.

Yet here it is !

==============================================================================================

In my former Post, I floated the idea that the existence of denominations within Christendom, and the observable multiplicity of conflicting beliefs, had its roots in the superficial reading of the Holy Scriptures. I promised a pointed example. I present it here. It is indicative of the general situation, rather than a selectively-homed-in-on exception to it.

==============================================================================================

From 1997 to 2004 I attended three Bible studies concurrently. Two of those studies (the denominational ones) used study guides from Christian book stores as their base. At one point, the focus of the Immersionist study was the Gospel of John.

The example of superficiality (one that sticks in my mind – one of a constant stream) pertains to a question asked in a chapter studying John 7:53 to John 8:11. The study guide asked a series of general questions – questions designed (when you look at them carefully) to keep people away from looking deeply into God’s Holy Word. They all focussed on self – what the attendees thought, as opposed to what delving into the Bible would reveal. The question in question was asked in the context of John 8:3-9 (NIV):
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
6 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

What was the question?

==============================================================================================

The question was [emphasis added]: “In your opinion, what was Jesus writing in the dirt?”

The response at the time was mainly silence. I remember someone asking how anyone could possibly know. The study leader (the Associate Pastor) penetrated the silence a few times, encouraging people to express their thoughts. He then moved on. He himself had nothing to offer.

Would things have been any different in the independent study group?

==============================================================================================

Continued...

 

[MoreCoffee]

People are neither sheep nor goats but the scene in the last judgement that our Lord Jesus Christ taught in Matthew 25:310-46 says that the nations are separated as a shepherd separated his sheep from the goats. That little word "as" is important. It signifies that what follows is a comparison, a smile, that is appropriate because it fits the separating that God will perform on the last day. God acting "as a shepherd" separates the righteous from the wicked. The righteous will inherit the kingdom that God prepared for them from before the foundation of the world. The wicked will receive eternal punishment. No people are "sheep" or "goats" they are all people.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Because of my unusual sense of humour, people sometimes call me a goat (Australian slang meaning stupid).

That makes me feel sheepish.

==============================================================================================

(Be sure you didn’t miss Post #29. It contains information you may find interesting, and maybe even important.)

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

...Continued

Post #27 (me) A pointed example of accepted (safe) superficiality will follow.

Post #28 (atpollard): No it won’t.

Yet here it is !

==============================================================================================

In my former Post, I floated the idea that the existence of denominations within Christendom, and the observable multiplicity of conflicting beliefs, had its roots in the superficial reading of the Holy Scriptures. I promised a pointed example. I present it here. It is indicative of the general situation, rather than a selectively-homed-in-on exception to it.

==============================================================================================

From 1997 to 2004 I attended three Bible studies concurrently. Two of those studies (the denominational ones) used study guides from Christian book stores as their base. At one point, the focus of the Immersionist study was the Gospel of John.

The example of superficiality (one that sticks in my mind – one of a constant stream) pertains to a question asked in a chapter studying John 7:53 to John 8:11. The study guide asked a series of general questions – questions designed (when you look at them carefully) to keep people away from looking deeply into God’s Holy Word. They all focussed on self – what the attendees thought, as opposed to what delving into the Bible would reveal. The question in question was asked in the context of John 8:3-9 (NIV):
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group
4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.
5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
6 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.
7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

What was the question?

==============================================================================================

The question was [emphasis added]: “In your opinion, what was Jesus writing in the dirt?”

The response at the time was mainly silence. I remember someone asking how anyone could possibly know. The study leader (the Associate Pastor) penetrated the silence a few times, encouraging people to express their thoughts. He then moved on. He himself had nothing to offer.

Would things have been any different in the independent study group?

==============================================================================================

Continued...

I led a bible study in my parish on the book The Acts of the Apostles and we used a study guide but unlike the study guide you mention this one aimed to get participants to delve as deep into holy scripture as they were able. The study questions didn't ask "what is you opinion ...?" they asked "after reading the passage and praying about it consult some commentaries and then answer these questions ...?" The questions probed the structure that saint Luke used in constructing the book, why did Luke choose to tell the incidents that he does, what is the purpose he has in mind when he draws attention to this and that in the story and so forth. Those participating came away with a much deeper understanding of saint Luke's book and an appreciation for how the Holy Spirit communicates to the faithful through the ages and most pointedly to the faithful in our time.

 

[TurtleHare]

Do y'all really think the op meant real sheep and real goats heheheh

 

[Pedrito]

Continued...

==============================================================================================

We saw in Post #29, an example of a typical, superficial (almost meaningless) question that was asked in a “normal” (representative) Bible Study I was attending. We also saw the lack of meaningful responses that resulted from that question. (Was anyone edified by it?) The thrust of the question and the others in that chapter of the study book, was concentration on self, not on God’s Holy Word. The question, pertaining to John 8:6 and John 8:8, was [emphasis added]:

“In your opinion, what was Jesus writing in the dirt?”

==============================================================================================

By way of contrast, were those verses being studied (in context) in the independent study, people would have realised that what Jesus wrote must have had strong significance for those looking on (when considering their background as the Covenant People of God). Someone in the study would have asked, and everyone (except for maybe a newcomer) would have been thinking, something like:
Was there anything in the history of Israel, that was written twice, and that had the power to convict people of their own sin so greatly that they forgot about the woman's? (Refer to John 8:7 and John 8:9.) If there is something like that, then we can be sure that that is what Jesus wrote. Because of its truly convicting power.

Has anyone a suggestion?

But that is just one of the many wonders (and not even one of the major ones) that God has placed in the Wonderful Inspired Holy Greek and Hebrew Scriptures (the Bible), for Serious Followers to unearth, and be blessed by.

As a person develops a true, deeper understanding of God's Holy Word, that individual's faith is positively strengthened, and our wonderful God is truly glorified in their eyes – glorified in an immeasurable fashion that cannot be understood until it happens.

(But unfortunately, that true, deeper understanding of the Bible, can be seen as dangerous to the religious Powers That Be. That is why meaningful Bible study is so often covertly discouraged.)

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do y'all really think the op meant real sheep and real goats heheheh

I hope not but it is a commonplace for people who hold a certain type of theology to centre all their attention on the separation of sheep from goats as if the difference between the righteous and the wicked is so obvious that a glance can tell the one from the other. I have read many posts and an occasional commentary that makes the distinction between sheep and goat the fundamental lesson of the story. Even the title of this thread suggests that the original post is premised on the idea that there is a fundamental (almost genetic) difference between the sheep-people and the goat-people. To me this is a very troubling approach to the story that the Lord tells.

The lesson is the judgement and its basis while the separation of sheep from goats by a shepherd is a simile used to give vividness and clarity to the scene painted by the Lord's words. It is, in effect, an incidental detail in the story of the last judgement. Though the last judgement story is not a parable it does use a simile (a comparison) to help give the lesson vitality and clarity in its telling and for the people who heard it the choice of a shepherd who separates his sheep from the goats was very real and very familiar so also very appropriate. But the shepherd, sheep, and goats are not the core of the lesson that the Lord is teaching. The core of the lesson is that the Lord of creation will come in all his glory and separate the nations (probably shorthand for the peoples of all the nations) dividing the righteous from the wicked and he will pronounce judgement upon them according to what they did in relation to him. Did they feed him when he hungered, visit him when he was imprisoned, give him something to drink when he thirsted, and so forth? The righteous did these things for the Lord even though they didn't know it was for him that they did it, they had done these good things for "these least of my brethren" and that was doing it to/for the Lord. Similarly the wicked are judged on the same basis and their fault was that they did not feed the hungry, house the homeless, visit the prisoner, and so forth. Because they did not do these things they are judged accursed and sent off to eternal punishment. The sheep & goats plays only an incidental role in this.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #32 (MoreCoffee):

I led a bible study in my parish on the book The Acts of the Apostles and we used a study guide but unlike the study guide you mention this one aimed to get participants to delve as deep into holy scripture as they were able...

That is definitely a cut above the “normal Protestant” “Bible Studies” I have attended over the years. The only one I remember that had any depth was an Anglican study conducted by someone with a Jewish background. It was verse by verse, and made no use of a “study guide” – his knowledge of Holy Scripture was immense. He got us thinking with penetrating questions, and his ability to identify clarifying scripture references (including in the Old Testament) was magical. Thinking about it now, it was probably he that triggered (or fertilised) my appreciation of the unity and integrated consistency of the Bible. (I’m referring particularly to the 66-book version in that context.)

I would suggest that the type of study that MoreCoffee led is definitely more beneficial than the type I used as an example. The other denominational study I mentioned was more like MoreCoffee’s. But the official stance of that church is expressed as “The Bible is not the Word of God. It contains the Word of God”. (I think I’ve got the wording right.) So it would not be incorrect to assume that there was nothing in that study that led people to Scripture that opposed the (then-current) teachings and practices of that church.

==============================================================================================

I float the thought that the most beneficial level of study is verse-by-verse, with people being encouraged to delve deeply into documented cross-references and to suggest others, and also encouraged to ask the style of question that they are normally conditioned not to ask (the “dangerous” ones). Once people have that freedom, the answers to the “difficult” questions, leading to an understanding of what the Bible actually does teach – the integrated, unequivocal message – will emerge.

It’s so cool when that happens.

==============================================================================================

 

[atpollard]

While I gravitate to verse by verse studies, I can also recognize the innate weakness that such a focus on the “trees” often causes one to not see the “forest” of the overall flow of logic within a letter written to be read in a single sitting.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

An apparent prophecy that by its very nature induces responses that fulfil the prophecy. It is a well documented and acknowledged technique.

==============================================================================================

Readers may remember something. Readers may remember how the Author of Post #28 has shown himself to be a past master at issuing self-fulfilling prophecies by interjecting comments such as that very Post #28 into streams of linked Posts in the past. His interjectory posts are cleverly worded in such a way that if a response is not issued, his proclamations retain a hint of apparent truth. If a response is issued, that naturally delays the continuation Post.

==============================================================================================

Post #28 is an excellent example of that tactic, in fact. Can Readers detect any other questionable techniques in that Post?

I have warned Readers in the past, to beware of dishonest approaches that are employed to deflect people’s attention away from inconvenient evidence – evidence that is difficult or impossible to refute. The use of such approaches simply highlights the fact that the evidence itself cannot be refuted. Dishonest techniques are employed only when there is no other option.

Please note: The dishonest tactics are normally aimed at evidence after it has been presented (and at the presenters of that unwelcome evidence). However, evidence that is yet to be presented, can also be subject to preemptive attack. That happens when former evidence from a particular presenter has proven to be both reliable and dangerous to cherished belief. The impending evidence is judged to be potentially as distressing as the former evidence was. (Preemptive attacks can also be aimed at the presenter.)


Now… Generally speaking, I cannot help but wonder: What sort of person would choose to employ dishonest techniques in a Christian forum? Could it be a simple black and white “sheep or goat” scenario? Or is there a different rating scale – one that contains geep and shoats, perhaps?

I strongly suspect that dishonesty with respect to the “things of God” is an indictable offence, somewhere.

Would it be prudent to take a step back, and reevaluate?

==============================================================================================

 

[MoreCoffee]

No Christian is either a sheep or a goat; all Christians are the image bearers of the Lord, Jesus Christ, their God, their friend, and their brother.

 

[TurtleHare]

No Christian is either a sheep or a goat; all Christians are the image bearers of the Lord, Jesus Christ, their God, their friend, and their brother.

:smirk: Are you one of them that seriously thought others believe they're a sheep or a goat, like seriously?