That deserves an answer. Before I do, it seems that you may be poisoning the well or at least maybe the well is already poisoned and so it is the case that you see it this way but, I don't think it would be fair to say that Jesus would have to be employing
sarcasm to have meant what I have proposed. It could have been irony instead or something else not so villifying... of course, no one believes in a deceitful Jesus and it does seem that you are employing a bit a sarcasm yourself in the false dilemma you attempt to force on those who would agree with what I have proposed.
Maybe our discussion should be moved to a new thread though... I do think Skan has Aaron in a Jiu Jitsu hold... I don't want to distract him from tapping-out! ;-)
Well, I assure you I was not being sarcastic, too tired for that tonight.
I believe Jesus was directly answering their criticism that he kept company with sinners and ate with them. Jesus was showing himself like a physician that by necessity must have contact with those who are diseased in order to heal them. It is a straightforward answer.
I don't think you can compare this incident with Luke 15. In Luke 15 Jesus tells 3 very detailed parables which are really one parable. In all three parables, whether the lost sheep, the lost coin, or the prodigal son, none were originally lost, but became lost. The Lord sought for these lost sinners and recovered them.
Now, this was an answer to the Pharisees who criticized Jesus for keeping company with sinners. He showed that God does not despise these sinners as the Pharisees did, but seems to argue they all originally belonged to God and were of great value to him, but seeks for them, and when they are recovered there is great rejoicing. I am sure this was very surprising to the Pharisees, who most likely believed that God hated and despised these sinners.
Nevertheless, there is also the theme that none of these sinners were originally lost, and there is the mention of the 99 just persons who need no repentance, and the eldest son who never transgressed his father's commands at any time. I do not believe Jesus mentioned these persons by accident, and that we are to study to determine who these persons are.
It was this chapter of scripture that caused me to seriously question Original Sin, because NONE of the stories here match up with Original Sin whatsoever. In OS, there are no just persons who need no repentance, everyone is born lost, no one is made alive again, and no person can be said to have never transgressed God's commandments at any time. Yet, this is what Jesus himself said, so it must be true. This may never have occurred to you, but this jumped off the page to me and immediately drew my attention.
There are MANY other scriptures that do not agree with OS, but I will not bore you with that now. Too tired anyway.
I think lots of folks simply believe what they are taught. When they read a chapter like Luke 15, they simply do not notice these details. Their mind has been conditioned, it is almost like a blindness. Perhaps a few notice these details refute what they have been taught, but many are afraid to think outside the "orthodox" box. I was never one of these types, I used to torture my teachers, and was known for asking "tough" questions. Just the way I was brought up, I was taught by my parents to think for myself, and never let anyone think for me. It's a family trait.
