December 26, 2005
-
Topic #21: Non-Christians celebrating Christmas? What do you think Jesus would do?
Socrates Cafe has offered speculation on Christ’s view of allowing non-Christians to participate in the celebration of Christmas as one of the topics for this week. Considering that ecumenism is near and dear to my heart, I cannot help but share my views on this topic. I am also hosting the topic, so I hope I will see some lively discussion from the other participants. I promise to try to be objective when I visit sites and to attempt to keep my opinions contained here on my own blog.
One of the first things that must be considered when pondering what Jesus would do about the inclusion of non-Christians in the celebration of Christmas is the fact that Jesus was not a Christian. He was a practicing Jew. It is true that the Bible tells us that Jesus did name Peter as the “Rock upon whom I will build my Church”, but the church itself was not started until after Jesus’s death. Because it was started by humans, it is subject to human frailty and error, so it is likely that the church as it exists today is not precisely the church as Jesus intended. There is not even agreement about which church Jesus actually directed Peter to start. I am a Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church claims to be the church instituted by Christ, but other churches claim that also. All of that is a matter of doctrine and belief and probably cannot be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. In any case, if the origin and identity of the Christian religion cannot be satisfactorily defined, the determination of the position of that church on the participation of non-members becomes very hazy.
If we can’t look to a church as the ultimate authority on this matter, where can we look? The Bible springs to mind as a possible source of enlightenment. Here again, though, there is a problem. The New Testament, which is the guide for Christian religions, was not written during Jesus’s lifetime. In fact, parts of it were written considerably later. In its current form, the Bible does not contain all the books that were originally written. There are others that have been left out for various reasons. Some of those books present different views. Even the books that are included in what we know as the Bible contain some inconsistencies. The Bible was written by humans and the books which are now included were chosen by humans, so it is likely that the Bible is subject to human error and frailty the same as churches are.
There is also the matter of how the Bible is read and interpreted. Is the Bible an historic document? Are we to assume that everything in both the Old and New Testament happened exactly the way it is recorded in the Bible? Or is the Bible a symbolic representation of truths and principles written so that people of the time could understand them? And, how faithful are the translations of the Bible? Translating often changes meaning. The Bible was written in languages that contain words whose meanings vary greatly depending on context. Versions of the Bible vary in the way in which many words are translated. Which translation is correct? The Bible is also interpreted by religious leaders. Theologians can read the same passage and come up with very different opinions on the meaning. How do we know who is correct?
At best, all of these questions boil down to a matter of faith. Is it better to blindly accept the teaching of a particular religion, or is it better to read, study, listen, reflect, and arrive at our own beliefs? Whatever path we take, we do have some knowledge about Jesus which can be used for guidance because there are some events that occur in the writings of many of the Biblical writers and are generally accepted as fact.
As I said, Jesus was a practicing Jew. If we believe the accounts of His life in the Bible, we know that He practiced His religion for His whole life. He was circumcised in accordance with Jewish tradition. His first public teaching occurred in a temple. He observed the marriage customs of the Jewish religion at that time as seen in the account of the marriage at Cana. The Last Supper was a celebration of Passover.
We also know that Jesus rebelled against what He saw as the abuse of religion. He overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple. He performed miracles on the Sabbath. He healed the infirm, even though, at that time, infirmity was considered a punishment for sin. He spoke of the “Good Samaritan” even though the Samaritans were not accepted by members of His religion. He associated with persons considered to be unclean. He numbered sinners among His friends. He treated women as equal to men. Was Jesus exclusionist? It would not seem so.
Jesus traveled among the common people. He did not turn away anyone who wanted to approach Him. He did not ask their religion. He accepted many people who were not accepted by others of His faith. Do I think He would turn anyone away from the celebration of His birthday? No. Christian religions agree that Jesus charged His followers to go forth and spread His word to all nations. He did not tell them to associate only with others who believed as they did. Do you think that Jesus would be disappointed in the direction that Christianity has taken? Do you think that He actually intended His religion to be a departure from the Jewish faith? Is it possible that He was only trying to get people to rethink the practice of the Jewish faith in order to eliminate some of what He saw as perversions of that faith? Do we really know?
Comments (43)
Thanks for joining the discussion, Nancy. Linking you now…
Well said
thank you.. i couldn’t ever have said it better.
merry christmas, kwanzaa and hannukkah!
Very well said!
This is a great essay. You have laid out the challenges of trying to interpret what Jesus would have felt very clearly. I think one reason that I usu. get annoyed or resentful when people quote the Bible at me is that the evidence we have for understanding Jesus’ life and teachings does depend on diverse and sometimes inconsistent sources. Even if we had original sources, questions of interpretation, at this distance in time (and culture) remain challenging. But your reasons for why Jesus would not have turned non-Christians away from celebrating Xmas are very well put – what did he actually do, how did he act, and what do we think he said?
It seems as if regardless whether Jesus was trying to create a different faith from Judaism, or just rid Judaism of what he saw as perversions of faith, he was trying to get people to live their lives in a way which would bring them closer to God. In Simone’s story, and a lot of stories I’ve come across lately, it seems like a lot of people who consider themselves religious or Christian or what-have-you, spend their energy on coming up with rules and reasons why others will not be allowed to become closer to God. It’s as if they conceive of God as some sort of limited resource, and only they and those they think are worthy get a piece of the pie. Jesus seemed more of the God-is-an-infinite-resource philosophy.
GaudyNight, one of the definitions of sin is that it is “that which separates one from God.” According to that definition, would someone who excludes another from participating in a religious ceremony because the person being excluded is not of the correct faith be sinning?
Who makes the rules of religion?
Nance – sorry, my post is up now! I had finished it but didn’t submit it (sorry to be so absent-minded).
Have a nice week.
Great post. Having been raised in a fundamentalist Christian household, as well as encountering many others from various sects, it always struck me that Christianity of today, and perhaps even as much as 500 years after Christ’s death, has more in common with the Philistines than of what he actually taught. I still meet quite a few people who I would regard as true Christians, but many succumb to the temptation of judging others within and without the faith, of enforcing the laws of the faith without thinking upon the spirit of the laws, and in many ways find themselves misguided. I always remember the story when he said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and think of how many Christians would have been on the side of Christ, and how many would have been on the side of the stoning mob. I think Jesus would probably be unhappy at the way his church ended up. But then again, you see the same thing happening in every religion. A few “get it,” others worship their church rather than the deity in question, and still others only pay it lip service for social recognition.
I suppose I have no question regarding whether Christ would have accepted the Non-Christians, but I will ask, what do you think Christ would have thought about the commercialism of the Christmases of today?
Wonko, I am very pleased to be asked that question. I honestly do not believe that Jesus would have a problem with the commercialism, although I think that He might think that it had gone a bit too far. His message was one of love and acceptance. He regularly got together with all kinds of people. Gift giving at Christmas is about remembering and recognizing the relationships in our lives. Parties are about getting together with friends. Drinking goes too far sometimes, but Jesus did not forbid the consumption of alchohol in spite of the fundamentalist teachings on that point. The Bible tells us that He changed water to wine at the marriage feast at Cana. He did this as a favor to His mother’s friend because the wine supply was running short. He also drank wine at the Last Supper. He was all about coming together with other people though, and he would approve of us doing that. I think that He would also want us to go to church to celebrate the day. I actually think that attending church is very important because Christ’s example was an example of community. I do not think that a mature adult must or even should accept all the teachings of his/her church, however. Questioning is a good thing.
So he would only disagree with the extremes of the commercialism? True, as I mentioned in my response to your question, much depends on the attitude. However, do you think that the commercialism of it has actually encouraged the extremes, such as families trying to put up the best decorations, or buying their children the best toys? Or does this have more to do with the individuals in question and not the attitude promoted in our culture?
Wonko, I think our culture teaches us that more and bigger is always better.
Hi Nancy. I respect your decision to practice the Catholic religion, and I appreciate everything you had to say. I believe that I don’t need to belong to an organized religion and choose not to. I liked your last paragraph, and with that being said….Do you think that living morally and respecting others without belonging to a church is enough in the end?
You brought up a lot of the same points I did, but said them a lot better! I admire your open mindedness, and willingness to look beyond the boundries set by your church. I wish you could come talk to the churches around here about that, they could really use some opening of the mind!
question: I seem to remember reading somewhere that Jesus said he did NOT want to start a ‘new’ church (as in an organised religion), but that his ‘church’ (that Peter was the rock of) was of the Spirit. Do you think Jesus would be pleased with ANY church that is in existance today?
~Mia
Hi, I think you have lots of courage to pick this question up. I had a problem with the question itself in the sense that It is historical fact that 25 December was a pagan feast B.C. Do you think Christians have the right now to claim it all just for themselves…and then using some pagan images that has nothing to do with Christianity like the Christmas tree?
Brilliantly written, my friend! I find it interesting how many people are offended when I point out the Jewishnes of Jesus – He celebrated all of the Feasts, the Jewish Holy Days, but He never once decorated a tree… well, there is that one myth, but I will continue to see it as poetry… and silly. LOL
BE blessed!
Steve
Girl_Interupted, I do not think any of us know “what is enough” or that any of us can choose for anyone else. I do think that the social aspect of belonging to a church is important. I think that the Bible gives us a picture of Jesus as a very social person. When I was younger, I used to think that it was strange when I heard people talking about “shopping” for a church to find one that “fit” but now I think that that is a very good idea. Only you know what is right for you, though.
Mia, no, I don’t.
Zeal4Living, I think there were very good reasons for incorporating pagan customs into Christianity. Christmas is not the only holiday to do that. They were familiar to the people and made them comfortable with Christianity. No, I don’t think Christians have a right to “own” those customs.
I agree that a lot of Pagan customs were changed for Christianity. Jesus himself hung around prostitutes and other so-called sinners, and as you mentioned he was a Jew. He would be accepting of non-Christians celebrating Christmas. One doesn’t have to believe in in him, to celebrate. Thank you for your greetings! Hope your holiday went well. Can’t really think of any questions for you.
Hi Nance, thjis is well thought out .I agree with all you have to say, I’m not sure if Jesus was trying to revamp the Jewish religion or what.
How can we know? As for what he would do, you said it.He would welcome any and all to celebrate.
Peace and Love:)
Just stopping back in to see what’s been said. I didn’t say earlier, but you know I appreciate your open-mindedness and your willingness to question and reason even your own faith. I’ve tried to find a good link for St. Thomas Aquinas to use in the forum before (this looks like a good one). Even though I believe this man to have been the cause of great pain and suffering in the world, he did determine for Catholics early on that it is necessary to use reason. Plato’s story of Socrates questioning Euthyphro helped him make this decision: “whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.” It is somewhat a riddle, but in solving it, Aquinas realized we must use our own reason or deny the goodliness of God. I did hope we’d attempt to solve it in the forum, but when I proposed it, no one appeared interested. Ah well, maybe another time.
Nance, you have some interesting things to say here. And you’re right, it’s a matter of faith.
What do you think about Jesus’ teaching that he was the only way to be saved, or to reach the “Father”? That no one can be saved unless you come through him? He was quite adamant about that and spoke about it often.
Hi John. Yes, I know that Jesus said that “No one can come to the Father except through me.” I do believe that that is true, but I believe it differently than you do, I think. I also think that differences in belief are OK and that knowing how others think differently is a good thing.
I am Catholic. I seem to be saying that quite a lot lately, don’t I? The Catholic Church does not teach a strict literal interpretation of the Bible. We believe that it is representational. Therefore, I believe that God may reveal Himself to people in many ways and that all of them lead to Him. I think that Jesus speaks to people differently, depending on their needs, so that they can hear Him. Catholics, at least many of them, tend to accept non-Christian religions as other manifestations of the word of God.
I also entertain some beliefs that are not in line with my church. I entertain reincarnation as a possibility, although I do not accept it as absolute fact.
I don’t think there are many absolute facts when it comes to religion. That is why it is called faith.
Do you think that God would turn his back on good people who are not Christian? I think that maybe we are straying from the original question, which was about whether non-Christians should be welcomed to celebrate Christmas, but I think it is a related question.
Well, according to Jesus and the writing if his apostles, yes – he will reject anyone that does not accept him, Jesus, personally as Savior and Lord over their life. This does not mean that God doesn’t love everyone – he does because he made them. He proved his love in that he came to earth as a man and lived here to ensure we knew he identified with us and loved us, and even died in our place so that we might not die.
This could not be done simply by a good and sinless man. This could only have that power if the one that created us and was the embodiment of “good” died in the place of his creation – ultimate love. Nothing less. He also could not give us eternal life unless he were alive, which was accomplished because he had power over death – he is God. Only God can die and come back to life again – and offer that to all who will believe in him – not Buddha nor Allah nor Isis nor anyone else.
At least, this is the basic teachings of the Church. Both the Catholic Church and Protestant Chruches. People who claim to be Christians may believe differently, but I would have to really study to just choose, out of my own human logic, to believe something else just because I feel that it’s not very nice to believe that God is so judgemental or discriminating. Well, if not God, then who? This makes it very easy to believe whatever we want. Again, the logic of God is not logical to man – we cannot easily understand nor accept it. That is because God has other and higher aims than does mankind.
Nanci Your tone is thoughtful and respectful and your thinking is flexible and logical. I learned some things I didn’t know and youhave given me food for thought. I don’t have any questions at this time but I tip my hat in respect,,,this was an important contribution to our discussion Mia Lucia
John, we have to agree to disagree because the Catholic Church really does not teach that only Christians can be saved. Isn’t it wonderful to be able to share differing views, though?
Mia Lucia, thank you so much for the very kind comment.
That was really interesting and will give me something to think about. Thanks for your comment.
As with most of your stories about real life I always get consumed in your views and enjoy your opinions. Many of which seem to be as I think as well.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
You are very right about Jesus being a Jew. And his brother James did not want to see a new church formed, just a reformation of Judiasm. Peter and James went about getting their type of disciples, but Paul had an entirely new vision, which was to baptise the gentiles and form a new church. When the gnostic gospels were found, modern scholars discovered that there was a wholly different type of Christianity going on before Rome took it over–and it was the sort of inclusive Christianity that I could have gone for. I hear there are groups springing up of Gnostic Christians all over now.
Nice piece and I hope you don’t get too much slack about it from True Believers.
Lynn
Nance – yes, it is great to be able to have differing views and be able to share and communicate. How else would I or anyone else learn anything? I really enjoy our communication!
A very good post! You said the things I wanted to say but you said them much clearer than I could. I agree with almost all that you wrote. I was Catholic for many years but am not now – I’m not much of anything or I’m all of everything – I’m not sure which. I miss the beauty of the rituals of the Catholic Church, seeing the various vestments, hearing the variety of music played for different services. I grew up in a Catholic family, as I’ve said before, but didn’t become Catholic and have instruction until I was 18. One of the things that bothers me about all Christian religions is the emphasis placed on Jesus being the only way to get to heaven. There is a Zen saying that when we point at the moon, we should look at the moon, not at the finger pointing to the moon (I’m paraphrasing, I don’t know the actual story/saying). That seems to me what Christians are doing and the fingers they are pointing are the Bible and Jesus. It seems to me that they worship the Bible almost as much as they worship God/Jesus. Also, I wonder if Jesus couldn’t have meant that the only way to get to the Father was to BE LIKE HIM (Jesus), not worship him. I also seem to remember that he said he came to save the faith (Judaism) not destroy it. Just some thoughts along this line of discussion.
Nancy – you have corrected me. Here is a link I found which would be interesting reading regarding the Catholic Church’s reply on this topic of “many paths” to reach God. From a clinical examination, I find it’s explanation rather double-minded, or self-canceling, but it does explain the Catholic Church’s position.
The Catholic Church Responds To Questions Regarding It’s Position On Jesus As The Only Way To Attain Salvation
See? I learned something! Thanks, Nancy – John
Nance1 – I read through the link above, and I think I sort of understand what “The Catholic” is saying, but I’m interested in how you think about the question of whether salvation is possible without belief in Jesus.
The link addresses those who may be saved “though no fault of their own,” meaning those who’ve never had a chance to hear the gospels or of Jesus at all, or for some reason can’t comprehend Jesus’ teachings. But what about folks who have heard the teachings but don’t believe salvation is possible only through Jesus? For instance someone of another religion who tries to lead a good life and basically adheres to “good practices” (loving they neighbor, not judging, etc), but doesn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah. I guess another way to put it is, how metaphorical (if at all) is the idea that salvation is possible only through Jesus?
GaudyNight, I think that the Catholic Church includes those who follow other religions in the group who has not “received Christ’s message through no fault of their own.” I think that they also include those who follow no religion. I am not a theologian, but I did attend Catholic schools, including a Catholic college. Viewpoints among priests vary considerably, as I am sure is true in many religions, but there are many priests who are very accepting of people of other faiths or people of no faith. Although we do believe, as all Christians do, that Jesus came to save mankind, we tend to think that that includes everyone.
There is a fundamentalist, conservative movement in the Catholic Church and there are priest and bishops who are part of that movement. That segment is not as accepting. I live in what was the most liberal diocese in the US. When our Bishop died a couple of years ago, the Pope gave us a very traditional and conservative Bishop. Many of us, including many of our priests, are having a lot of trouble with that. I do not feel, though, and I know priests who agree, that just because the Bishop is conservative, that we all have to become conservative.
As I have said elsewhere, I do not feel compelled to accept all teachings of my church. I am an adult and can choose for myself. I do find that it is important to me to function within a church. The Bible gives a picture of Jesus as a very social person. He was not functioning alone. One of the first things that He did when he began His public life was to gather a group of followers who were then with Him most of the time. He spoke to large groups of people. In fact, there are really no stories in the Bible about what Jesus did when he was alone. He also continued to practice His religion, even though He was trying to change it. I think the example is clearly one of community. That does not necessarily mean that people who do not practice a religion cannot be saved, but I think that the intent is that religion is to be shared.
We had our priest over for dinner last night, and I talked to him a little about this. Specifically, we talked about acceptance. Our priest is very accepting of others. He and I agree that acceptance is very important. Excluding people is not productive and is not in line with the concept of religion. The Bible specifically charges the followers of Jesus to go forth and spread the word to all nations. How can the word be spread if we do not welcome anyone who wants to participate?
ryc Nance1 you are in no way crowding my attempts at hosting ,your questions are insightful and often help me formulate my own.The reason you missed my post is that I was quite late making it.I think people are self involved (when they are ) for much the same reason that they may have difficulty receiving from others, it seems to stem from a reaction to unmet needs at some point in life that leave a person with an overblown sense of their autonomy…and a strong need to protect it by not being involved deeply in others lives . Giving requires us to involve ourselves. I think most folk have times when their reactions are self involved ,and this is normal I can not see you ever being deeply self involved if your writing on line is indicative of who you are. I think for those of us who sometimes regress and become self involved it is that something has triggered a reminder of a time when we were alone and needed but the need was not met.For the rare soul who is chronically and deeply self involved my best guess is that they are unable to bond with others probably because of some kind of deep deprivation. You can be severely neglected or abused and remain capable of bonding,especially if even one someone has shown you love, but sadly not everyone is so fortunate.I do not think giving for gain is giving in any sense of the word. it is currenct then ,nothing more.Asking for help reminds us we have needs which makes us vunerable. Its like taking medication ,good for you ,it should be easy ,but we may well resist. Look at me ,I have given up respite care….partly because I don’t want to need the help.So i should listen to myself eh? Peace Mia Lucia I also posted this at my site so readers can follow the exchange:)
ryc: its very hard to get just the right amount of sugar in there, and sometimes the lemons just aren’t right for the taste……..
Nancy, about your quote – “Is it possible that He was only trying to get people to rethink the practice of the Jewish faith in order to eliminate some of what He saw as perversions of that faith?”
In my opinion, Jesus was a Jew, and gave the Jews their chance. According to the Bible – yes, again – he came to the Jews, and when they rejected him, he told the disciples to tell everyone “go ye therefore….”. There are other places where it shows that the Jewish God – Jesus – is not just for the Jews, but ultimately for the world, and that he just began with the Jews as a “control group” – an example for us to look at regarding who God is.
I don’t think Jesus would really care whether anyone celebrated in this gaudy way or not during Christmas – although I do think he would want everyone to hear the message and have the opportunity to choose him as their God – and most people have heard the message of Jesus through Christmas celebrations. I think we agree on that, at least, don’t we? I hope so! I really want to find more that we agree on!
I really don’t see where all of this “accept everyone” comes from if we are reading the Bible, however. According to Jesus’ own words, yes, everyone is welcome, but not unconditionally. There are rules, as in everything else. How can we take ALL of Jesus’ words and then derive that he accepted everyone, no matter what they did or did not believe, even if they chose to not believe in any God at all. There is not impetus to accept Jesus at all. Not to do anything, accept anything, love anything, stand for anything – at all if we follow those beliefs. If Jesus accepts everyone unconditionally, then they can be found acceptable if they believe in any other God or system of living, which is not what he said was the way to be “saved”.
In the “everyone is accepted” vein of thought, if they are faithful in their humanism – they’re in. If they are good and kind atheists, they are in. If they are faithful in their Satanism – then they are in – hey, they’re good citizens and very enlightened, right? Where does this thinking lead? The fundamentalist thinking comes from Jesus’ own words.
The “accept everyone” thinking comes from Jesus’ own words – but only if we don’t accept them all.
Help me out here, Nancy. Where do you think I might have gone wrong? – John the Literalist : o )
John, according to your religious background, you are not wrong. And according to mine, I am not wrong. That is why it is called faith. Neither of us can absolutely prove our positions.
I definitely believe that there is only one God. I believe that any God that people identify as God is that God whether they think so or not, because there is only one God.
I think that the Bible can be interpreted in many ways and different religions do that. Infividual verses can be picked out to justify almost any line of thought. There are also different ways of looking at the Bible as a whole, and yours would be different than mine because you are a fundamentalist and I am not.
Does it really matter whether we agree as long as we are both comfortable in our beliefs?
Nancy, you are absolutely right! This has been a very stimulating discussion that we have had, and I have learned a lot from you. You have really brought some things out about the Christian faith that I did not fully realize until now. There are so many varied beliefs and views, aren’t there?
Thank you, and Happy New Year, my friend – John
Howdy
HAppy New Year !
Nance1 – thank you for answering my question. I know this response is very late. I’m having a hard time keeping up with all the interesting conversations, and I’m only focusing on this one SC topic! I liked your response very much. I’ve always had a hard time with the concept espoused by many religions, that you’re going to hell (or at least, not get into heaven) if you dont’ believe exactly as that religion believes. It seems like a big scare tactic. Would I have any better chance at getting into heaven if I acted “correctly” and professed beliefs that were exactly “correct”, but only did it because I was afraid of hell? I wouldn’t think so!
Nancy, I also left this response to what you posted from GaudyNight on my site, too.
“I have been thinking about Jesus’s statement that we could only come to the Father through Him. I am now wondering if Jesus referred to his act of redemption as being the way that we were to come to the Father and not necessarily only to the practice of the Christian faith. Jesus died for all people, not just for some. The Bible tells us that. That would account for the Catholic Church’s inclusive stance on the ability of non-Christians and non-believers to be saved.”
In reference – this is the same reasoning as before. In response – without meaning offense, but just using Jesus’ words as a reference – you can’t circumvent Jesus’ words if you want to follow them.
If we are reasoning from within the Biblical text, then to accept Jesus and to come to the Father only through him would dismiss the legitimacy of following any other path or polytheistic system – even if it includes Jesus. If you accept Jesus as the only way to the Father – the only God – then choosing another path, religion, god, or no religion is negating what Jesus’ words clearly say is the only acceptable path.
“I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father by by me.” In this statement, and others like it, Jesus is using clear imagery that the Jews would understand that he is it – period. You can’t come up and punch your “Jesus Ticket” and then go to another door to get inside.
I don’t want to over-do the scripture side of things, but below I have pasted a very important passage that clearly says what Jesus’ mind was regarding any other way. In other words, only his voice is the one we should follow. We can’t accept him and then follow other teachings. We must, however, be careful to make sure that Christian teachers are not adding anything or taking anything away from what we read in the Bible. This next part discussed “other sheep”. He is referring to the fact that at this time in his life, he was only bringing the message to the Jews. The “other sheep and other sheep pens” are other nations outside Israel. He is saying that, as prophesied in the Old Testament, when the Jews reject him he will open the message of his salvation to the “Gentiles” – or the rest of the world – all people. But notice that he still inlcudes, “they too will listen to my voice”. He gives no indication that the rules change for anyone.
John 9:41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
JN 10:1 “I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3 The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them. 7 Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me– 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father–and I lay down my life for the sheep.
This next part addresses “other sheep”. Here Jesus is referring to the fact that at this point he was only bringing the message to the Jews. The “other sheep and other sheep pens” are other people - other nations outside Israel. He is saying that, as prophesied many times in the Old Testament, when the Jews reject him he will open the same way to his salvation to the “Gentiles” – or the rest of the world – all people. Notice that he still inlcudes, “they too will listen to my voice”. He gives no indication that the rules change for anyone.
16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life–only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
“One flock and one shepherd” indicates that Jesus is to be the leader, and “one flock” means that anyone that accepts him as their shepherd will leave their flock and join Jesus’ flock, listening to his voice only, not another voice, since “they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice” and also because “the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber”.
Ooops! As you see, I cut and pasted things to make my response more clear, but I neglected to cut what I copied and pasted. Arrgggh!
You know Jesus said, speaking about the laws of the Torah, that he didn’t come to change anything. That didn’t stop anything though, I forget who it was declared that all laws were null and void because of Jesus, but then everyone says everything to suit themselves and make the suit fit them nicely. Second-guessing is the name of the game of Christianity, at least on the net, where everyone says in justification of whatever bone they are picking at the time (oooh mixed metaphors!), Jesus would have this and would not have that and God abhors or loves…. Like everyone hs a direct like to them up there!
((I was raised in religious Orthodox Jewish household but with a thwarted-nun Irish Catholic housekeeper and attended Non-Conformist schools and youth clubs. It was all very eclectic).
Why wouldn’t Jesus be unhappy with the religious set up of the Jews at the time if he were a religious man let alone the saviour you believe him to be (whereas I stop at religious man)? Imagine how the elders of any country must fight to keep the kids true to its traditions and ideals once the American Empire settles in with Nikes and MacDonalds, short skirts, tattoos around the navel, women politicians, cell phones and democracy. Imagine how hard the Amish fight to keep their kids within their culture – they have to take the kids out of school at 14 to indoctrinate them whilst they are still close to the family. It really isn’t a different situation. Traditions and standards go out the window when luxury and ease are waiting outside the porch.
Sins of omission are as much sins as sins of commission, but people generally don’t feel anyway about them. In view of the fact that we were (I was anyway) friends once, I have decided to just hum tunes and let things go. Happy New Year to you.