|
Post by stlvufan on Apr 1, 2006 16:53:32 GMT -5
Not even close to what I was trying to say. That's why we need to talk the next time we see each other. Are you coming to Valpo anytime soon to visit your dad? If so, whadda ya say we have lunch - my treat? I'm actually driving up tomorrow for opening night at US Cellular Field and will be staying for game 2 on Tuesday afternoon, so I guess I'm free on Monday. We can meet, but you can't buy me my food, remember?
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Apr 1, 2006 16:56:29 GMT -5
Oh, and whomever he dined with, whether an apostle, a prostitute, a pharisee, a Sadducee, or anyone else - they were all sinners. Of course. The confusion stems from the fact that this was NOT the perception in Jesus' day. I've been trying to stick to the usage that was popular then, even though we both agree that is an invalid distinction from God's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by stlvufan on Apr 1, 2006 17:03:34 GMT -5
Pharisees were not better than sinners, they themselves were sinners but often didn't think they were. I agree. I think they were more well-behaved and diligent, but certainly that doesn't win them more points in heaven. When he thanked God that he was not like that other "sinner", he did think he was better than the other guy. Didn't say he didn't, but he credited that to God rather than himself, at least in his words and his reverence. He thought that for a couple of reasons in my view. One, that he did not do what the tax collector did, i.e., be a traitor or extort money from his fellow Jews. Agreed. Secondly, he thought just because he rigidly kept all of the laws, many of which were man-made and not biblical while some were biblical, that he was a better person than the other fellow and that those actions made him better. Not true. He does not recognize that even if he has kept the hundreds of laws, both biblical and man-made, he is still a sinner. Agreed.
|
|