Observation

[pneuma]

Jesus did not ask who he was talking to what they would do if it was their sons or daughters. 

Better read it again brother, Jesus spicifically said WHAT MAN AMONG YOU

Please use my entire sentence in context with what I was saying pneuma.

You asked me if my father was looking for my brothers and sisters (his sons and daughters) if that would change his perspective.  You asked me that after I gave an analogy of my Dad looking for cows.   


I said to you that Jesus did not ask anyone what they would do if their sons and daughters were lost (and I do not need to read it again to know this), he asked them about sheep.


I think your question to me is why Jesus DID  talk sheep and not family members, you asked me the question about my brothers and sisters to emotionalize the issue.


 

I don't see the difference Paul, the lost sheep is a parable speaking of the Fathers children, Jesus was not really talking about sheep.

Maybe that's the difference on why we see this differently.

Luke 15:4
4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

For me when Jesus said what man among you, He was trying to get those people to see the love and care the Father has for His children, He was trying to get them to relate to a father son principal and why the Father would leave everyone else to find that lost child.

I don't see it because it was just the Fathers duty, but because of the love the Father bares for all His children.

Anyway that my last word on it brother, we'll have to agree to disagree.

God bless

[reFORMer]

SOtW . . . I was only having a pro-emotion moment without much research.  I don't believe emotions equal the spiritual or that they are necessarily an evidence of spirit, though they may be, just as they may be the result of sowing to the flesh.  Generally, whether thought, will or emotion:  these are soulish functions which if we are given over to the spirit will reflect Godliness, or contrariwise, be evidence of the works of the flesh.

Watchman Nee says the functions of spirit are conscience, intuition and fellowship.  I see these as soulish evidences, transmissions into our soul from spirit, because we must have a feeling awareness of them as well as decisions about them in order to register the existence of their source.

[Molly]

I don't believe emotions equal the spiritual or that they are necessarily an evidence of spirit,

I do.  Like you said yourself, Reformer, --


Psalm 119:139
My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words.


Main Entry: zeal
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'ze(&)l
Etymology: Middle English zele, from Late Latin zelus, from Greek zelos
: eagerness and ardent interest in pursuit of something : FERVOR
synonym see PASSION



12And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

--Matthew 21

[Craig]

Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Emotions are spiritual just as much as intellect is spiritual, one is not greater than the other because neither is the spirit of God. The spiritual live by faith, not emotion or intellect.

NOTE: It has been explained already that those who believe spirit = emotion are deceived by the pattern of the world.

NOTE: Matthew 21 has already been explained, Jesus did not clear the Temple because of emotion.

[Molly]

LOL!  Craig!  He's multi-dimensional, just like us.  :kisshand:


1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.


13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1Cor 13



"love"
G26
ἀγάπη
agapē
ag-ah'-pay
From G25; love, that is, affection or benevolence; specifically (plural) a love feast: - (feast of) charity ([-ably]), dear, love.


PS I was responding to the message you removed.  Thank you, Craig. :girlheart:

[Craig]

Can you keep reading through the entire chapter? Actually read Chapter 12 first, and find out what the gifts of the Spirit are (which most people now reject as being of the Spirit), and then Read Chapter 13 and recognize Love is not just an emotion, keep reading what Love is, don't just stop at verse 1 and start at 13. Love does things that emotions cannot, like not keep a record of wrong, rejoice in what is true and hate what is evil, never fail, never give up, always hope, etc. The emotion of love can fail, can be lost, sees the world through rose colour glasses so doesn't know what is true, nor does it hate what is evil. It is not surprising that people just pick and choose what Scriptures they use, and ignore everything else that contradicts them.

I guess this observation has been exhausted, it isn't surprising though. I need to step back unless my other emotions get involved which come from the flesh.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Luke 15:4
4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

For me when Jesus said what man among you, He was trying to get those people to see the love and care the Father has for His children, He was trying to get them to relate to a father son principal and why the Father would leave everyone else to find that lost child.

I think what we see differently is how we determine what the start of an emotional plea is.

What man among you is simply addressing directly who he is speaking to.  

If someone was to say  "What man among you..... has the time"   that is not an emotional plea.


By looking at the parable and how it progresses,  Jesus related shepherding to  what God does for his children.   I would believe this particulat instance to be an emotional plea if there was no correlation made between sheep and Gods children.

If I was to relate my Dad finding cows to something,  there would be no emotional plea, it would be an intention  to make a statement of fact.


Mt 18:14 Thus it is not the will in front of your Father Who is in the heavens that one of these little ones should be perishing.

Lk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.


All I am saying is that the emotion is contained within the process of Gods will.  The emotion is the result of the fact.   The words in the parable are not to invoke an emotion to make it more believable.  Nor is anything but a duty mainly shown to show that emotion is not the point of view God operates from.

I don't see it because it was just the Fathers duty, but because of the love the Father bares for all His children.

Love is the Fathers duty.  For that reason it can never fail.  

Anyway that my last word on it brother, we'll have to agree to disagree.

You can, I simply disagree and write my point of view, nothing wrong with that.

[Craig]

All I am saying is that the emotion is contained within the process of Gods will.  The emotion is the result of the fact.   The words in the parable are not to invoke an emotion to make it more believable.  Nor is anything but a duty mainly shown to show that emotion is not the point of view God operates from.

Exactly. That is what the problem is from the beginning, lack of understanding what an emotional appeal is. Just because someone is describing an emotion someone has, is not an emotional appeal or emotionalism. That is actually another fallacy called, hasty generalization.

Look at Isaiah 53, which is talking about Jesus.

Isaiah 53:11
After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

[Molly]

Revelation 3:16
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.


Isn't this referring to emotion?  The Lord of glory--ho hum...

Lukewarm--an emotion born of boredom, neglect, lack of interest, distraction?

But, worse than that it seems, when the love of many grows cold.

[Craig]

Revelation 3:16
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.


Isn't this referring to emotion?  The Lord of glory--ho hum...

Lukewarm--an emotion born of boredom, neglect, lack of interest, distraction?

But, worse than that it seems, when the love of many grows cold.

Revelation 3:16
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

This is not an emotional appeal, nor is it emotionalism. It is a fact. He has given you an ultimatum, one not based on emotion, regardless of what you think it says. In context, it is speaking of those who pursue good, and pursue evil, the ones who are apathetic treated as those who pursue evil. It is not an appeal to emotion, it is the penalty of living an apathetic life versus one of purpose. It is completely logical and has no appeal to emotion to be found. If one has emotion as a result of this ultimatum and penalty, that is not because it was to appeal to your emotion, it is because all good emotion is preceded by fact.

Why do you and others have a problem understanding this?  Whether emotion is there or not, is not what this observation is about. Let me repeat, this is not about emotion or intellect, it is about the use of emotionalism and appeal as reasons to believe, which have no reason to believe otherwise.  It is about how people mistake emotions for being spiritual, when they are not and never have been.

Try reading through this entire observation of mine and understand what it is you are actually disagreeing to. This is NOT a pro-emotion or anti-emotion discussion or observation and to address it as such, is your folly. You are arguing what you do not understand and it is getting ridiculous.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Revelation 3:16
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.


Isn't this referring to emotion?  The Lord of glory--ho hum...

Lukewarm--an emotion born of boredom, neglect, lack of interest, distraction?

But, worse than that it seems, when the love of many grows cold.

The misunderstanding here is the difference between a fact that involves emotion and using emotion to rally support for something.

If you see the definition of lukewarm it is the emotion resulting of other things.


For instance

A child gets disciplined by a denial of a candybar in the store.  The child throws a fit, a raging fit , screaming at the top of the childs lungs.

A person says to a crowd of people

"How many among you feel bad for this child that is being denied the sugary delight?"

Or

"How many among you cry for this child in dire need of sweetness?"


How people feel about it is irrevalent.   If its not, then the harder the child cries we can conclude a worse crime is being committed against the child.   Unfortunatly, there are people who think this way, and the reality is that how hard a child cries over something does not determine the severity of the action taken towards the child.

If Jesus had started the parable in question by pointing out how it would feel to lose a child, then indeed it would be an emotional plea.

We might have a certain feeling upon thinking about something lost,  but how we feel is not what Jesus was talking about.