I'm trying to figure out some Christians. I often hear the reasoning that if Jesus didn't do XYZ that means we shouldn't either. After all, He is our ultimate example that we should emulate and imitate, right? Is the idea that "if Jesus didn't do it we shouldn't do it, either" really correct, though? Well, if that's the complete truth and the only things we should ever do are only the things that Jesus did we Christians fail miserably at that. After all, Jesus didn't drive a car. He didn't use microwave ovens. He didn't eat hotdogs. He didn't watch Monday Night Football. Yet, these, and many, many other things I didn't mention, are things many Christians do that Jesus didn't do. Do Christians not realize how dumb they sound when they try to overspiritualize things and not leave room for Christians to have the freedom to do things that aren't inherently sinful that Jesus may not have Himself done? ???
Don't think I've heard that before. I've heard and seen the T shirts/bumper stickers "What would Jesus DO", which is a great teaching tool for children and young adults. I just haven't heard anyone use that type of restrictive phrase. Where are you hearing that?
I've heard that a few times back in the day. One particular day (in which I probably was NOT in a good mood apparently), someone in our circle of conversation made that remark. I directed my attention at that person and said (not exactly word for word, but quite close. It's amazing what I can remember at times), "Well, Jesus didn't bowl, Jesus didn't listen to heavy metal, Jesus didn't drive, He didn't play a bass guitar and probably never had a McDonalds Big Mac extra value meal either. I guess I'm a whole bunch of Christian fail, right?". The topic of conversation changed rather quickly.
Yep. That's pretty much what happens when you play it out that way. No one thinks forward when they present these silly man made teachings.
The only times I've seen that line being used have always looked like situations where someone had a particular dislike for something and wanted to come up with a justification for saying it was universally unacceptable rather than something they personally chose not to do. I'd rather listen to cats fighting than listen to what fans of One Direction call music, but that's not to say nobody else should listen to it. I might question their taste but it's not for me to tell them they must not listen to it. But if someone has a particular issue with something (it's usually something like drinking, smoking, listening to rock music or similar) then come the lame reasons why nobody should do it. Either "Jesus didn't do it" or "we are not to be like the world" when the world does it. Of course the things that Jesus didn't do or "the world" does that the person in question has no issue with are acceptable. Over on That Other Forum there was a guy who thought drinking and smoking were unbiblical on the basis we were not to be like the world, but apparently didn't have any issue using the internet or going to work. Once he tried to pull the "avoid the appearance of evil" but when I reminded him that a vast amount of internet traffic is pornography so he should avoid using the internet - you know, to avoid the appearance of evil - he started spinning again.
Although it's not exactly a case of 'Jesus didn't do it', but follows the same idea there are certain congregations in the Church of Christ denomination that do not have any musical instruments accompanying singing because the NT appears silent on the subject.
Been in a few of those. Don't like it. Acapella singing is fine but instruments are good as well. However, they also need to look at Ps. 150, which mentions numerous instruments.
That's exactly the explanation I've heard from those that oppose musical instruments in church today.
I'm not sure if there are any other larger denominations beside the CoC that adhere to this. This denomination is known for being quite a bit more legalistic in their doctrines, but it's not consistent from church to church as they are fairly autonomous from each other.
My argument there would be "but Jesus paid attention to the OT. In Acts he discoursed about the Messiah to those going to Emmaeus out of the Scriptures. The only Scriptures available then was the OT."
Pft, don't you know that Paul argued that Jesus was the Messiah from the letters he hadn't yet written?