How You Treat a Brother in Christ is How You Treated the Lord Jesus Christ

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alert
  • Start date Start date
A

Alert

Guest
How You Treat a Brother in Christ is How You Treated the Lord Jesus Christ

Here's a recording of mine on this subject.

Holy Bible - Matthew 25:31-40 (ESV)
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[f] you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
 
wil said:
Where is the implication/requirement that they be Christian?

I read it as all people, of all religions (or none)
Click to expand...
Verse 40
It is the brothers in Christ, or also includes the sisters in Christ.
 
That's a different parable, @wil. You are thinking of the Good Samaritan. Obviously, you have not mastered the art of compartmentalization yet ;)

@Alert welcome! So I understand you to mean: It is necessary for Christians to be nice to everybody, but it won't do a follower of other faiths any good. So you're a "faith&works" person, theologically?
 
Last edited:
Interesting ...

The term in verse 40 is adelphos, which Strong translates as brethren. So it could mean immediate family, or a larger family, or community, or the whole of humanity.

So then you have to read in context. As, at the time, we have no evidence of Christians being persecuted, it's hard to see our Lord meaning His own followers to the exclusion of others. So I would say, in common with the universality of His message, His apparent willingness to entertain (and heal) all, regardless of their race, religion, etc., and the fact that the only thing that seemed to annoy Him was hypocrisy, I would say one would have to read this to mean His kinship with anyone who suffers, and His kinship with anyone who seeks to alleviate suffering ...
 
The real Jesus was a human like the rest of us, probably with a charismatic personality, which made him stand out from the crowd. I believe the gospel writers created their version of Jesus. If he came back to life today, I suspect he would be amazed at what was attributed to him, much of it not being credible.
 
JJ50 said:
The real Jesus was a human like the rest of us ...
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the orthodox Christian position.

JJ50 said:
... probably with a charismatic personality ...
Click to expand...
Well we don't project quite as far as that, but probably.

JJ50 said:
I believe the gospel writers created their version of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Yes, again that's the orthodox Christian position. What you've got is four biographies each addressing an audience and a situation.

JJ50 said:
If he came back to life today, I suspect he would be amazed at what was attributed to him, much of it not being credible.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's all credible within its context. If you don't accept the context, then the testimony is irrelevant.
 
Thomas said:
Yes, that is the orthodox Christian position.


Well we don't project quite as far as that, but probably.


Yes, again that's the orthodox Christian position. What you've got is four biographies each addressing an audience and a situation.


Oh, it's all credible within its context. If you don't accept the context, then the testimony is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It isn't credible within any context, imo.
 
JJ50 said:
The real Jesus was a human like the rest of us, probably with a charismatic personality, which made him stand out from the crowd. I believe the gospel writers created their version of Jesus. If he came back to life today, I suspect he would be amazed at what was attributed to him, much of it not being credible.
Click to expand...
You seem very sure.

Yes, Jesus was human like the rest of us. He loved and suffered and died.

But he IS alive today -- as the eternal Christ, the intermediary between God and man, the manifestation of the divine as human.

If he came back again today, in human incarnation, he would probably draw people away from materialist wisdom, to divine wisdom -- and he might also have a scathing attutude toward 'religious professionals'.

EDIT: The Cross is a mystery that has reached everyone, from the poorest, the sick and the dying, to kings and the wisest thinkers. For a long time.
 
Last edited:
JJ50 said:
It isn't credible within any context, imo.
Click to expand...
If this were on another board, I'd let it pass, but as it's on the Christianity board, it invites response.

So the first and most obvious is in such exchanges, I have no way of knowing the axioms of what you regard as credible, or why.

All religions push the bounds of credibility. At its core, every religion has a 'revelation', and in the religious context a revelation is that which is disclosed by the Divine and which is otherwise inaccessible to the intellect. We might speculate, but we cannot know.

So, in short, whether you think its credible or otherwise, does not serve as a viable critique. I wouldn't expect it to be credible. And the deeper the believer goes, the more 'incredible' his or her knowing, which is why the wise tend to keep quiet.

On the other hand, as I said, within the Biblical context, the Divinity of Christ is utterly credible, although the Doctrine of the Incarnation, along with the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, comprise the two most profound revelations of the New Testament.

+++

This exchange called to mind the half-remembered phrase, attributed to Tertullian, "I believe because it is absurd" — turns out that famous aphorism is not what he said at all, it's a fabrication of Reformation and Enlightenment anti-Catholic and anti-religious propaganda. You know that once a party resorts to 'fake news' then their whole argument is on dodgy ground.

So looking around I found this:
certum est quia impossibile est is actually argument in the tradition of reason — and Tertullian was trained in Roman jurisprudence — and would have been aware of Aristotle:

Another line of argument refers to things which are supposed to happen and yet seem incredible. We may argue that people could not have believed them, if they had not been true or nearly true: even that they are the more likely to be true because they are incredible. For the things which men believe are either facts or probabilities: if, therefore, a thing that is believed is improbable and even incredible, it must be true, since it is certainly not believed because it is at all probable or credible." (Rhetoric 2.23.21)
Or put another way, no-one ever thought Trump would win the Presidency, or that the UK would vote to leave Europe. The idea of both of those things is as absurd as they are incredulous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Yes, during one's [human] life span it we practice inter-personal etiquette.
Reciprocal exchanges as a vocation translates into the required protocol for How we do service...and the apex of service to others is exchanging pastimes with God in his environs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top