So, seeing this thread morphed off a post I made in another thread, I thought I would weigh in.
This may be long, so read it or ignore it, your choice.
First of all, both Smellin and The Rogue set the premise that the words of Jesus trump the words of Paul (and I assume Peter, John, James etc as well). Foolish doctrine. The "words of Jesus" are not the words of Jesus, they are the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. How that makes them more authouratative than Genesis, Psalms, 1 Corinthians or Galatians is beyond me.
Second of all, a mixing of terms is taking place that often happens in this discussion. Associate, friend/friends, fellowship. They are obviously not the same words, so they carry different meanings while being at some level synonymous.
In regards to that, Christ was "friendly" towards anyone and everyone who was willing to talk. He was sharp with the closed minded, specifically the closed minded Pharisees and Saducees, but friendly towards Nicodemus. He associated with anyone and everyone, and as a result was criticized for it. Application? We should be willing to associate with anyone to reach them with the gospel. What he did limit however, was his fellowship. The word fellowship means (and meant) communion. I quoted Ephesians 5:11, 2 Corinthians 6:14 is a good cross reference, although most of you probably know that.
In posting about this, the topic of a wedding vs a funeral came up, specifically in regards to a homosexual wedding or a homosexual person funeral. They are completely different. A funeral is not for the dead, it is for the living. It is a time of grieving and mourning. That is done by sharing memories and, in a good funeral, hope in Christ with a Bible message. It is a time to show care and compassion, a perfect opportunity to share the love of Christ. A wedding is a celebration. It celebrates the union of two people. It is a time to express joy not mourning. There is nothing to rejoice over in a homosexual wedding, and your presence signifies your approval or at least your tolerance of an activity specifically prohibited in the scriptures. If a lost man and a lost woman get married, they are not violating the scriptures, they are in a small way even if it is unintentionally, honouring the scriptures. Better for them to marry than to live in fornication. A homosexual wedding on the other hand is a denial of the scriptures, it is a (whether it is intentional or unintentional) denial of the authourity of the scriptures.
Then one of the women with an alabaster box is mentioned. I assume the one in Luke 7. So, Smellin, I would be mad at you if I were her, you called her a prostitute, the scriptures do not. A sinner, yes, with indications that she was a notorious sinner, yes, a prostitute, that's not in there. It would also be important to not that nowhere in there do we see Jesus alone with her, in a compromising situation with her, nor do we see Jesus advocating her activity whatever it was even if it was prostitution, what we do see is Jesus saying to her, "go in peace". In other words, like he said to another woman, "go and sin no more". This is not advocating behaviour, this is "faith in Christ can change behaviour".
What we have fellowship with is important, it is in fact one of the marks of being a Biblical Christian.
