This passage has been dragged out as proof that "the gospel" is simply a social justice gospel. Jesus was here to help the oppressed and the poor and the transgender. Oh, no, not that one, but He would have been if they had been around at the time. You know, any of the mistreated and minimized. Assuming that's so, it's sad to know that Jesus failed.
Some points in response:
Right. Take the Bible literally... unless it's Jesus' words speaking of Jesus' Good News... then you should make it metaphorical and basically ignore it and replace it with your own human-made "gospel" that leads with "You're all disgusting sinners who deserve an eternity of torture... AND the vast majority of you will get just that!"
My concern is that much of modern evangelicalism has a sick idea of "good news." Sick, in the sense that it's entirely divorced from Jesus' actual gospel. Jesus, the author of that Gospel, one would suppose.
My concern is that modern evangelicals regularly fail to take Jesus' words seriously and opt, instead, for trying to render them meaningless and impotent.
Stan said... "If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty and the oppressed from oppression, He failed to accomplish His mission."
Wow. He is trying to emasculate Jesus who he calls Lord, saying his teachings, taken literally, show a failure of a man unable to do anything.
It's stunning, how little respect modern conservatives have for Jesus' teaching.
Jesus' way as he taught is a way of salvation for all, beginning with the poor and oppressed but including the rich and powerful and privileged. Like me and most people who might read this blog. It includes us WHEN and AS we join with the poor and marginalized in fighting oppression and building the Beloved Community.
Ironic that Stan choose this MLK Day to attack the idea of the Beloved Community as a failure of an idea, a failure of Jesus' teachings.
And what of Stan's "gospel" of bad news for nearly all of humanity? Of assumed failure and eternal torture for the bulk of the world? You call that a SUCCESSFUL bit of "good news..."??? If you're going to say Stan's "gospel" is better because Jesus' Good News didn't fully succeed in ending the oppression and marginalization of the poor then and there with Jesus, well, hell, isn't the modern evangelical "gospel" an UTTER failure because most people, in that scheme, will die and be tortured for an eternity?
Think about it.
And rather than misrepresenting what Jesus' progressive followers are saying when we point to his literal words, why not begin by listening to what we're actually saying? Stan's parody of our position - our understanding of Jesus' literal words - is a pale and faint understanding.
Stan also said...
"Still, I happen to think that the latter -- saved from sin -- is more impressive and more important ... and more consistent with Jesus's ministry and the rest of the Scriptures (like Jesus's own claim that "The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost")"
1. Again, the "good news" that the majority of humanity will NOT be "saved from sin" but will instead, be tortured for an eternity for their typical human failures is NOT good news at all. It's sick, evil, irrational. Even if you ultimately disagree, do you at least see how truly awful that "good news" you modern evangelicals have manufactured is?
2. Stan cites Luke 19, that Jesus came to seek and save the lost... but he lifted that verse entirely out of the passage to ignore the context of those words and render it meaningless in an effort to promote the modern Evangelical bad news. I wondered if Stan (and others) caught how they did that?
3. Also, in context, this passage REFUTES that misrepresentation of Jesus' actual gospel, that Jesus "failed" because no poor people were lifted out of poverty.
Luke 19, in context (the story of Zaccheus)...
When they saw it, they all began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.”
Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord,
“Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I
will give to the poor,
and if I have defrauded anyone of anything,
I will give back four times as much.”
And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.
“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."
WHO was the lost one in that story? Zaccheus, the rich man.
WHY was he lost?
Because he had placed his treasures here on earth - that is, accumulating treasures for himself, which ultimately led him to a way of cheating and oppressing the poor (which is one of the trappings of wealth).
WHAT saved him?
Recognizing his way was sick and harmful and repenting and following Jesus in HIS way, which was a way of restoring the poor and cheated, of lifting them out of the oppression caused by systems of wealth and power.
Stan chose a great passage but reached an ass-backwards interpretation of it.
I wondered and asked Stan if he saw how that might be correct... that he'd misinterpreted this passage?
The Way of Jesus is a way that, when followed, leads the people siding with/aligning with the poor and oppressed and taking actions which defends them and helps restore them to the Beloved Community. To the degree that we take Jesus' words literally (as Zaccheus did), the poor ARE restored and, at least, a welcomed part of the beloved community of God. And, when the rich and powerful continue to dismiss Jesus' teachings and they aren't lifted out of poverty fully or made whole, they are, nonetheless, part of a beloved community which shares what they have to alleviate the suffering of the poor and marginalized by the wealthy oppressors.
Look at what the passage is actually saying, people.
Stan...
"If Jesus came to save the poor from poverty and the oppressed from
oppression, He failed to accomplish His mission. He tried, but
apparently it's up to His followers to accomplish what He couldn't."
1.
Jesus literally fed the hungry. Success. That was literally good news
for the poor and hungry. It wasn't a failure. Shame on you, Stan, for calling
Jesus a failure.
2.
Jesus told his followers to literally feed one another, especially the
hungry and marginalized. And they did so. That was success, not a
failure.
3.
Jesus literally saved the oppressed woman accused of adultery (somehow,
magically, apart from any man!) from those who literally sought to kill
her. You can bet that was good news to her. Shame on you, Stan, for calling
Jesus valiant actions a failure.
4.
In the passage Stan cites, Zaccheus was led to change his ways and follow
Jesus way, literally feeding the poor and fighting oppression. That was
a success... That was good news both for Zaccheus and for the people
that he had harmed. Shame on you, Stan, for calling Jesus a failure. Zaccheus
would disagree.
5.
Jesus said that those who followed him would do even greater things
than him. And indeed, we have. We've ended the notion of slavery being
accepted as a moral option, by-and-large. We've ended the oppression of
women in places where Jesus' teachings are followed. We've more fully
developed and recognized the notion of human rights and spread that good
news around the world. We have made progress precisely because of
following the Teachings of Jesus' way.
Following
Jesus way has indeed lifted the poor out of misery and helped to end
oppression. Have we ended all oppression? No, but we've made progress.
On the other hand, has Jesus saved all of humanity from their sin? Modern Evangelicals
would say no... nothing like it, that most people are doomed to an eternity of torment (hell).
Which way is truly the failure?
36 comments:
YOUR way is truly failure, because you can't separate printed words from the meaning intended by their usage. Stan didn't speak of "Stan's" Gospel. He spoke of the Gospel, which you think was intended "first" for the materially poor. It wasn't. It was meant for the spiritually poor.
Stan didn't bastardize Scripture. You bastardized Stan's post to further your SJW agenda, which ignores for whom Christ came. By your perversion, all the materially poor in Christ's time were angelic and all the wealthy were demonic. What an incredibly infantile understanding of the times.
And you understanding of whom Jesus spoke when mentioning "the poor" in the cited passages would mean that when He said He came to save the lost, it meant the guy who wouldn't stop as the gas station to ask for direction.
I also note nothing in Stan's post spoke of eternal punishment...a topic Jesus referenced Himself...and to claim that "Stan's gospel" promises that as a feature is an intentional lie or egregious ignorance of Scripture. The FACT is that the "Good News" is Jesus as Savior. And from what will we be saved? Eternal separation from God.
The issue, then, is not a problem with "Stan's gospel", but with your own corruption of the mission of Jesus and why He was sent by the Father.
And so it continues. May God grant you the epiphany you so desperately need. In Christ's Name I pray.
Marshal... " It wasn't. It was meant for the spiritually poor. "
I get that YOU INTERPRET it that way. That is, you dismiss Jesus' clear and obvious meaning and make it a metaphor for something else. In this case, there is no evidence that you are correct in abandoning a literal interpretation.
You are welcome to choose to ignore the clear, literal meaning, but no one is obliged to agree with such an unsupported claim.
Marshal... "By your perversion, all the materially poor in Christ's time were angelic and all the wealthy were demonic. What an incredibly infantile understanding of the times."
Of course, I never said that "all the material poor were angelic and all the wealthy were demonic."
That would be missing the point. So, you fail to understand my words and, I think clearly, you fail to understand Jesus' words. There is a trend there.
I would just ask you, Marshal, the same questions that Stan won't answer.
Are you saying that Jesus "failed" in his gospel (to bring good news to the poor, marginalized, etc) if he didn't fully lift them out of poverty? If so, why? Did Jesus say he'd come to lift the poor out of poverty? No, just that he'd come bringing good news and that this good news was a way of living that, as it was embraced back then (as in the early church and in Zaccheus' example, among many others), was indeed literal good news for them, because it was a better way than the begging, starvation and marginalization that was the standard then. Why must Jesus life ALL the poor fully out of poverty (like a magic trick?) for it to be considered a successful by modern capitalists like you and Stan?
IF you're saying that Jesus "failed" because he didn't eliminate poverty, then WHY if the "gospel" actually is the "good news" that all of humanity is bound for an eternity of torture, but some minority of humanity might be saved by "accepting" the "blood payment" from Jesus' death? If ALL is the measure of success, isn't your system an abject failure?
And what of the many passages where Paul is quoted as saying that Jesus' sacrifice was to save ALL humanity... but then, you don't take Paul literally there, either? Was Jesus impotent to save all humanity? Did God just not care about the majority of humanity (forget that "for God so loved THE WORLD..." you all don't appear to believe that, either)? Or God cared, but STILL was powerless and not concerned enough to save them from something as drastic as an eternity of torture?
You may try to answer these questions if you want to comment here.
What did the Messiah, the promised one of God as foretold in the Old Testament, assume as his purpose regarding the poor?
"The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners."
Either Isaiah or Jesus or Marshal is lying about who the poor are:
"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God."
"Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly."
"If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you."
"If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need."
"Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land."
"Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
"I know that the Lord secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy."
"It is a sin to despise one's neighbor, but blessed is the one who is kind to the needy."
"Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."
"Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward them for what they have done."
"Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered."
"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life."
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?
Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear; then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday."
I know, the gospel of Good news for the poor and marginalized is one that is found throughout the pages of the Bible, front to back and is hard to miss unless one commits first to a human theory of a Ransom-paying, blood justice-demanding god that condemns most of humanity to an eternity of torture - indeed, I believe that most evangelicals of this conservative sort would affirm that God's plan is not only NOT to "seek and to save the lost." Period. Nor even to seek and save a good portion of humanity. This "good news" is only that a TINY percentage will be saved ("for wide is the path and broad is the way that leads to destruction...") and the vast majority will be tortured in a living hell forever.
Some "good news!"
They keep using that term. I don't think they know what it means.
Stan and Craig, at Stan's, continue to miss the point and misunderstand what is actually being said by folks like me who take Jesus pretty literally and very seriously.
I tried to clarify for Stan and Craig thusly:
Stan... "If we take that in an absolutely literal sense, it wasn't a plan; it was an accomplished fact. He wasn't going to do it; He already had."
What the passage literally says...
He [Jesus] went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up,
and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom.
He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him.
Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down.
The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him.
He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
1. This is the beginning of Jesus' recorded ministry.
2. Jesus is saying he'd come to proclaim this way - this good news to the poor and marginalized.
3. He WAS LITERALLY proclaiming this.. he had JUST proclaimed this Way to those present.
4. So, when he said this was TODAY fulfilled, he literally HAD fulfilled it AND begun this Good news for the poor and marginalized... this beloved community/realm of God... AND he continued it beyond that very day.
5. Nonetheless, that he continued to preach that same Good news for the poor does not mean that it wasn't also fulfilled on Day one. He made it clear to those present "THIS is the message I'll be preaching. HE CAME THAT DAY to begin preaching that message. IT WAS fulfilled... and he continued to fulfill that calling until the religious zealots chose to have him killed.
6. So, those of us who think this passage is best understood fairly literally don't have a problem with that message and its fulfillment.
7. However, those who believe that Jesus' "good news" was that he would die and pay for the sins of the world (or a minority part of the world, since you all don't believe that the whole world would get saved), "TODAY this is fulfilled" is literally not factual, since it wasn't fulfilled until his death, was it? "It is finished," Jesus said on the cross and your human theory is that the payment was made to a god who demanded a blood payment for sin. So, in Luke 4, that gospel was NOT fulfilled, was it?
When Jesus said he'd come to PREACH GOOD NEWS for the poor and marginalized, that is literally fulfilled when he preached that message, was it not? He didn't say, TODAY, I come to you to heal every blind person and make every poor person rich and TODAY, that is fulfilled.
You're reading but not understanding. But now that I've clarified, do you see where you're making your mistake?
More addressing of Stan's misunderstandings...
Stan... "Then, I noticed that He said He was anointed to "proclaim good news to the poor," but it didn't say what that good news was. "Freedom from poverty" or even "something to eat" wasn't listed. In what sense did He mean "set at liberty those who are oppressed" and how and when did He accomplish that?"
Nor did he say "good news for the poor" meant that "you're going to continue to suffer in poverty and marginalization and oppression for all your miserable life but THEN, after all that suffering, some small percentage of you (40%? 10%??) MIGHT be saved to something more pleasant ("Heaven," however that is defined) but the vast majority of you will go from merely suffering from oppression and hunger and poverty your whole life, to actually being tortured for all of eternity, as if you were being burned alive all day long, every day for the rest of all eternity! That's your 'good news,' folks! Sorry. But Yippee! ...for a few of you."
Do you see how that isn't good news at all? A promise of MAYBE a pie in the sky by and by, but probably not, probably eternal torture, instead? I'm not asking if you agree... I'm asking if you can see what terrible, awful news that would be to your average poor and oppressed person?
Stan... ""Freedom from poverty" or even "something to eat" wasn't listed."
No, but Good news to the poor was made more and more clear as Jesus ministry matured. He was welcoming to all the overlooked and abused and oppressed, whereas that wasn't the norm. AND he was teaching his followers this was the Way and the more people follow Jesus' teachings, the more welcoming of the poor and marginalized there would be. And not just welcome, but a literal place at the communal dinner table, receiving some actual food.
And a plan - for those who had plenty could share. As we see in the actions of the early church, who learned of their methods and principles from Jesus' Gospel... Those who could afford to, shared. Those who were in need, partook. Acts 2, Acts 4, Acts 11.
"Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." Jesus, Luke 12
"And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." ~Acts 2
"Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
There was not a needy person among them
for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." ~Acts 4
"The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea." Acts 11
"There was not a needy person among them."
Do you SEE the powerful good news that model offers? Here. Now. The Kingdom of God is and can be here and now, where the poor, the widows, the orphans, the stranger are all welcome and room made for them and where people share to make room for all.
Glory! What great good news for the poor and marginalized that is. Here. Now. At least potentially.
And the same holds true for setting free those in captivity. Literal good news, brother. Can you at least get a sense of how that could be?
They need to do themselves an honest favor for once: note how many times the poor are mentioned in scripture and how many times homosexuality is. Or the fetus.
Telling.
Yes.
Again, more questions asked at Stan's blog where they don't want to hear the answers:
Craig... "what we have is folks who'll likely take exception to "is fulfilled" as literal, while insisting that we have to take "poor" in a woodenly literal sense to only mean the materially poor."
Jesus came, literally saying that he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized and when he did, THAT ANNOUNCEMENT is, itself, the beginning of telling Good News to the poor and marginalized. Thus, THAT ANNOUNCEMENT is fulfillment, at least in part, of what he said.
How is it not to be understood literally?
It seems you all want to say, "They say that Jesus came preaching good news to the poor... and yet, the day he did that, all the poor were STILL poor! Thus, we can't take it literally..." But Jesus did NOT come saying, "Today, I'm going to give every poor person one million shekels," so your hoop you want a literal Jesus to jump through is not required by his words here.
Do you understand that point?
Craig... "what we have is folks who'll likely take exception to "is fulfilled" as literal, while insisting that we have to take "poor" in a woodenly literal sense to only mean the materially poor."
1. We're not saying it means ONLY the material poor. We're saying that Jesus is LEADING with the literally material poor. There are certainly other ways to be poor as well. Poor in reading comprehension, for instance.
2. I see no reason why not take both "good news to the poor" AND "today, it's fulfilled..." literally in this text in context.
Craig... " seem this pretty regularly where folks will take bits and pieces of a larger passage as woodenly literal, while dismissing other pieces as figurative, with no logic as to why one is different than the other."
Yes, I see that a lot, as well. Especially in modern conservative evangelicalism. As in this case. As in the case of Jesus coming to save the WORLD and to save "THE LOST" and to save "THEM ALL..." and yet, you all don't like that part of the text, do you?
As for me and folk like me, of course we have a logic - some principles in place to understand what should be taken literally, what metaphorically, and in other cases, what we may not be sure about.
Those principles include:
A. Interpret the confusing through the obvious.
B. Interpret the impossible through that which is known to be possible (ie, flat, square earth)
C. Use your God-given common sense and reasoning.
D. Interpret all the Bible using common sense.
E. Interpret all the Bible through the lens of Jesus' clear and direct teaching.
F. Interpret ancient texts with respect to the ancient language and settings.
G. Interpret passages/texts with respect to the genre they are written in and the time they are written in (ie, don't insist poetic or metaphorical language should be taken literally, don't interpret mythic language as modern historic writing, etc)
And WHY interpret the Bible through the lens of Jesus' teaching? Because we are followers of Jesus, first of all. Because we believe Jesus to be the best expression of God and God's ways we have and thus, our best hope of understanding God is through God's clearest representation of God's Self and Way. Which we believe to be Jesus.
As you can see, then, there IS a logic and a rubric we use when deciding what is best understood more literally and what is best understood more metaphorically.
At the very least, can you acknowledge that there IS a logic to it all and, even if you disagree with our reasoning, you are mistaken to say we have no logic?
More...
Craig... " If the "good news" Jesus spoke of was not an elimination of material poverty, and not elimination of oppression, in this current world, but was of the reconciling of everything to Himself then the "is fulfilled" makes sense."
1. How?
2. Says who?
3. You'll note that WE are not saying that Jesus came saying, "I'm going to eliminate poverty," did we? Because that is NOT what Jesus literally said. You don't appear to be able to understand Jesus OR our words. Perhaps a bit more humility would be in order?
4. How was "the reconciling of everything to Himself" fulfilled on that day? Was every human in the world saved on that day? WOULD every human in the world be saved because of what he announced that day?
We know that your answers to those two questions is No and No. In fact, you all believe that the majority (vast majority?) of all of humanity would NEVER be reconciled to him. Right? How is that a fulfillment, then?
5. What do you even mean by "the reconciling of everything to Himself" even mean, specifically? That's fine flowery vaguely theologically-sounding phrase, but it seems to be meaningless. But maybe you can explain what you mean?
Craig believes that if Jesus really wanted to solve poverty he’d have removed free will from humans and have it all cleaned up.
By the same argument if Jesus really wanted spiritual reconciliation he’d have to remove free will. He didn’t. Not all are reconciled. Did he really want it?
Or did he ask us by the power of the Holy Spirit to be his body and bring news to the poor and powerless and second class citizens of the world - a work of love that - like the cross - would reconcile the world. But Craig won’t take up his cross of suffering, though scripture asks us to. He just ventured into Haiti with his paternalizing goosebumps of feeling good about himself.
I would love to respond to questions directed at me (by Dan), but I have no confidence an actual "adult" conversation is possible at this blog, given the fact Dan deletes legitimate comments on the flimsiest of grounds. But I will cite his list above and the problems therein:
"Those principles include:"
A. Obvious to whom? A rather subjective endeavor even among intelligent people.
B. This totally eliminates every miracle in Scripture, including the Resurrection. Indeed, it is then foolish to even believe in God and abide this "principle" at the same time.
C. Problematic for those like you who lack common sense and the ability to truly reason. Reasoning to you has manifested in rationalizing non-Christian attitudes, beliefs and positions.
D. Case in point, as this is redundant given point C.
E. One must first understand Christ's teachings in order to do so...and you clearly don't. It's also helpful to remember that Jesus is God, so anything attributed to God/Jesus, regardless of the Testament in which it appears, is "Jesus' clear and direct teaching."
F. You've failed to do this with your reference to every mention of the English word "poor" in Scripture.
G. This is no more for you than license to reject that which you neither understand or wish to abide. It's another "principle" subject to subjective interpretations over truly objective interpretation supported by evidence.
With regard to "F", I have links to that which deals with the ancient language as regards "preaching good news to the 'poor'". I hesitate to present it given your penchant for deleting that which doesn't immediately agree with your leftist demands regarding what to you Scripture must mean.
1st of all, the point of my list is that Craig is incorrect to say we're applying no logic or systematic reasoning to how we're interpreting biblical passages. Clearly I am.
You may disagree with my list - which is pretty common sense and fairly traditional, at least in part - so you may disagree with my list or disagree with how I apply it, but you can't say I - and those like me - have no logic or systemic reasoning behind how we interpret biblical passages. That would be objectively demonstrably false.
Do you recognize that much?
Please answer this before making any other comments.
Marshal... "A. Obvious to whom? A rather subjective endeavor even among intelligent people."
As a point of fact, interpreting meaning behind the words and passages in The Bible is subjective. Obvious to a reasonable person is what I'm saying here, but
this will be subjective.
What is obvious to me will be subjective to me on points I can't prove.
AND what is obvious to YOU will be subjective on points you can't prove.
For instance:
I and a great number of other people think that at least the early parts of Genesis are written in the clearly delete mythic manner. We think that's obvious. People like you don't. Neither of us can prove it.
That is a demonstrable reality. Do you recognize that reality?
Now, taking that a step further, I and reasonable people CAN demonstrate that there were no known "histories" being passed on from person to person back in the day that were written in a modern literally factual, linear manner. ALL the known histories written back in this time period were told in this mythic manner. And you would agree with this for all the other known histories. That is, you would probably agree that Gilgamesh was written in a mythic manner and we'd be mistaken to take it literally.
We can demonstrate that this was the norm back then. We can point to the absence of any other histories told in a more modern style doesn't exist until centuries later. We can demonstrate this, but we can't prove objectively what the authors intents were in the Genesis stories. You can't and I can't.
Do you recognize that reality AS a reality?
Marshal... "B. This totally eliminates every miracle in Scripture, including the Resurrection. Indeed, it is then foolish to even believe in God and abide this "principle" at the same time."
Speaking for myself, I make all kinds of room for the Unknown and for Mystery. But this line of thinking WOULD put a dent on anyone who would insist that every miracle that defies known reality must be taken as a sign from God.
And you would agree with this, almost certainly, in the case of other religions and beliefs. If a Mormon said that God brought lost tribes of Israel miraculously to the Americas and that Jesus visited them miraculously, you would feel no obligation to take claims of such miracles as "proof" that it must be real.
Agreed? For any other religion, you would be dubious of any miraculous claims, right?
And why would you do this? Because you have no reason in a rational world to believe such claims. Such claims - without any proof - would demand to be met with skepticism, wouldn't you agree?
Likewise, I would remain skeptical of any miracle claims - even from my faith tradition - without any demonstrable proof. I happen to think there is sufficient evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, but I recognize that it's not a provable claim.
And once again, neither do you, for any other religion.
The question is, why would you insist upon it with your own human traditions, especially when it is an unprovable claim?
Last one, for now. Marshal... "C. Problematic for those like you who lack common sense and the ability to truly reason. Reasoning to you has manifested in rationalizing non-Christian attitudes, beliefs and positions."
So, this would be the sign of an irrational and unprovable and stupidly false claim.
Of course, I and those like me are not lacking in common sense and the ability to truly reason. I use common sense and reasoning every day. It's demonstrable.
No doubt, what you might mean to say is that you don't think I exhibit SUFFICIENT commonsense or reasoning so as to please your notions of what's reasonable, but it's just stupidly false to say that most of humanity lacks common sense or reasoning entirely or even in a subjective "sufficiently for me" manner.
I and others like me are educated people with a great deal of responsibilities and actions taken every day that require some degree of common sense and reasoning. That you disagree with our conclusions on theological or biblical questions that you can't prove is simply not proof of no reasoning ability.
Disagreeing with Marshal and his human traditions is NOT evidence of a lack of reasoning capability and such irrational claims undermine your credibility.
Do you understand this and why it's true?
Marshal, about your suggestion that you "have links that deal with ancient language..." etc, I'm sure you do. And MAYBE some of those might insist that, IN THEIR OPINION, "poor" should not anywhere be taken anything like literally in the gospels. But so what?
There are just as many links to traditional and progressive Hebrew and Greek scholars who will affirm that the text means just what it literally says - the "poor," the destitute, those literally without. And that the rich young ruler and other instances of rich are talking specifically, literally about the rich as we understand it.
What would suggest that people should heed your preferred "links that deal with the language" more than the multitude who would disagree with a literal reading?
For instance, Clarke's commentary...
"To preach the gospel to the poor - The English word "gospel" is derived from two words - "God" or "good," and "spell," an old Saxon word meaning "history, relation, narration, word, or speech," and the word therefore means "a good communication" or "message." This corresponds exactly with the meaning of the Greek word - "a good or joyful message - glad tidings."
By the "poor" are meant all those who are destitute of the comforts of this life,
and who therefore may be more readily disposed to seek treasures in heaven;
all those who are sensible of their sins, or are poor in spirit Matthew 5:3; and
all the "miserable" and the afflicted, Isaiah 58:7.
Our Saviour gave it as one proof that he was the Messiah, or was from God, that
he preached to "the poor," Matthew 11:5.
The Pharisees and Sadducees despised the poor; ancient philosophers neglected them;
but the gospel seeks to bless them -
to give comfort where it is felt to be needed,
and where it will be received with gratitude.
Riches fill the mind with pride, with self-complacency, and with a feeling that the gospel is not needed. The poor "feel" their need of some sources of comfort that the world cannot give, and accordingly our Saviour met with his greatest success the gospel among the poor;
and there also, "since," the gospel has shed its richest blessings and its purest joys. It is also one proof that the gospel is true.
If it had been of "men," it would have sought the rich and mighty; but it pours contempt on all human greatness, and seeks, like God, to do good to those whom the world overlooks or despises."
https://www.godtube.com/bible/luke/4-18
Marshal is existentially threatened by my questions because he is way out of his depth. I can measure the 3” of water he stands in and show it to him.
So he’s afraid of my shadow.
"1st of all, the point of my list is that Craig is incorrect to say we're applying no logic or systematic reasoning to how we're interpreting biblical passages. Clearly I am."
Totally a matter of opinion, not fact.
"Do you recognize that much?"
No, because it's only your assertion, not a fact, that there's anything akin to logic, reasoning or common sense in your conclusions about any given Scriptural issue. Perhaps it's in how you worded the points on your list. But clearly, they're flawed in the ways I've described.
"As a point of fact, interpreting meaning behind the words and passages in The Bible is subjective."
I disagree. The whole point of interpreting Scripture is to determine what is intended by the author. I doubt any scholar worth his salt seeks anything less than that, and to allow that there is another way just as likely true means he's not done his work in the first place. But it's plain that ambiguity is essential to the progressive.
"I and a great number of other people think that at least the early parts of Genesis are written in the clearly delete mythic manner. We think that's obvious. People like you don't. Neither of us can prove it."
The "reality" is that regardless of whether or not the style of historic recording is labeled "mythic", all that matters is whether or not what is related to the reader is true and factual. It could have been written in the style of Dr. Seuss and the only thing that would matter is if the point is to be taken as factual and true. Thus, the style in which Genesis is written is inconsequential and irrelevant...unless the "style" allows a progressive to more easily pick and choose what to believe.
"Now, taking that a step further, I and reasonable people CAN demonstrate that there were no known "histories" being passed on from person to person back in the day that were written in a modern literally factual, linear manner."
...and it wouldn't matter. And I would again insist you speak only for yourself and not presume that anyone who agrees with you is thus "reasonable". Link to others who will make their own arguments if you wish, but to position yourself alongside unknown people you label as reasonable is a logical fallacy which does nothing to enhance the merit of your argument.
"That is, you would probably agree that Gilgamesh was written in a mythic manner and we'd be mistaken to take it literally."
It's a far greater mistake to suggest that any other ancient tome is worthy of comparison to Scripture. Scripture stands alone and above all others. There's nothing about any of the others that suggest their deities are real...no evidence for them aside from their ancient texts you think prove something about Scripture...no reason to refer to them at all outside of study regarding the culture from which they came.
"We can demonstrate this, but we can't prove objectively what the authors intents were in the Genesis stories. You can't and I can't."
What, in the whole of Scripture, can you prove?
"Do you recognize that reality AS a reality?"
So you're saying it's reality because it's reality? Did that type of reasoning buy you any points in debate club?
"But this line of thinking WOULD put a dent on anyone who would insist that every miracle that defies known reality must be taken as a sign from God."
I'm aware of no one else who is capable of performing miracles. I don't even think we can insist Satan has done so, unless you count possession...if you believe possession ever takes place. But if we allow for that, then we're still talking about that which Scripture teaches and how can one "Interpret the impossible through that which is known to be possible", when miracles, by "nature", are impossible. Miracles are that which defies the physical or the natural. It's impossible for someone to rise from the dead. This one miraculous event in Scripture is an essential believe, without which the Book is just fables.
"And you would agree with this, almost certainly, in the case of other religions and beliefs."
We're not talking about other religions, none of which are true. Why would I care what tales they tell given that fact?
"And why would you do this? Because you have no reason in a rational world to believe such claims. Such claims - without any proof - would demand to be met with skepticism, wouldn't you agree?"
There is nothing about any of those other religions for which there is any proof whatsoever. We're forced to take the word of those who "invented" those religions, be they Joseph Smith, Muhammed, or any other. Our Book is the work of those who witnessed what is within it. Jesus didn't walk around saying He spoke to angels of whom no one else witnessed. No one had to simply take His word for anything as they were all witnesses to His miracles. People saw Him get tortured and crucified and then shortly thereafter saw Him walking around as if it never happened, save marks on His hands, feet and side. So despite not having proofs of the miracles themselves, there is proof of so much regarding Scripture, including recorded references by non-Jewish, non-Christian people of that era.
There's absolutely no comparison between that which supports the truth of Scripture versus any other religion. Most importantly, none of that even matters as we're only concerning ourselves with Scripture. The moment you look to how other religions do their thing, you're demonstrating you don't really have any faith at all. There's nothing to see there.
"So, this would be the sign of an irrational and unprovable and stupidly false claim."
It's an unresolved point of contention and has been since the earliest days of our association on the blogs. It's provable to most, if not all, by simply reading your comments. All those conservatives who no longer bother with you...and there are so many now...demonstrate that what you regard as common sense and the ability to reason is neither. I've no doubt you like to regard yourself as possessing both, but it really doesn't manifest to others as you like to tell yourself it does. Perhaps there are other areas of your life where these traits do manifest. It just doesn't here on the blogs regarding the issues we've been debating since 2008.
"Of course, I and those like me are not lacking in common sense and the ability to truly reason. I use common sense and reasoning every day. It's demonstrable."
Just not here on the blogs. And there's that "others like me" logical fallacy, which kinda proves my point.
"No doubt, what you might mean to say is that you don't think I exhibit SUFFICIENT commonsense or reasoning so as to please your notions of what's reasonable..."
I don't mean to say that at all. What I mean is what I did say already. To suggest you merely don't exhibit "sufficient" commonsense or reasoning doesn't sufficiently reflect the truth.
"...but it's just stupidly false to say that most of humanity lacks common sense or reasoning entirely or even in a subjective "sufficiently for me" manner."
Then it's a damned good thing I wasn't referring to "most of humanity", isn't it?
"I and others like me are educated people with a great deal of responsibilities and actions taken every day that require some degree of common sense and reasoning."
Again, Dan...I'm only dealing with you. Not "others like you". And also again, you may exhibit better sense in other areas of your life. You just don't show it here on the blogs.
"That you disagree with our conclusions on theological or biblical questions that you can't prove is simply not proof of no reasoning ability."
The ability to prove a point is neither here nor there. It's the conclusions we draw which suggest the presence of common sense and reasoning ability, or in your case, the lack thereof.
"Disagreeing with Marshal and his human traditions is NOT evidence of a lack of reasoning capability and such irrational claims undermine your credibility."
It's not about "disagreeing with Marshal". It's about not having an alternative explanation that makes any sense, has any Scriptural support which justifies disagreeing and then the deleting of my comments when these failures on your part arise. When you default to "you're making stupidly false claims", you're not exhibiting common sense or reasoning ability. You're exhibiting "Nyuh uh".
"Do you understand this and why it's true?"
I've just explained why it's not true. Do you have the reasoning ability to counter?
Note that this comment reflects my opinion of your capabilities, which I regard as lacking. Though one can argue it's a subjective position, I believe the totality of your blog entries and comments support it greatly. I've no doubt whatsoever that you disagree.
As to your response regarding "the poor", you're not quoting Clarke. You're quoting Barnes. But both refer to the spiritual, with Barnes getting all leftist. I'm out of time now to get into it. But the point is that I doubt you can find "multitudes" who feel as you do.
I will also state that my position has no bearing on the teachings of Christ related to concern for the materially poor. I never said that every reference to rich and poor are only "spiritually" rich or poor. In fact, I've clearly stated that distinction many times. I've only dealt with specific verses and passages where you've incorrectly regarded the word as meaning the "literally" poor. Again, while you pretend to care about reasoning and interpreting "ancient texts with respect to the ancient language and settings" and "all the Bible through the lens of Jesus' clear and direct teaching", you're not doing that at all with the verses on which we've differed. My links refer to the ancient languages and the usage of words in the contexts in which they appear. In that, I'm on far firmer ground than you who simply looks at the English word in your Bible.
Marshal, speaking of my rubric/logic/reasoning for interpreting scripture said...
"Totally a matter of opinion, not fact."
No, it is an observable fact that IF you have a rubric, a system in place of determining how to best determine meaning and understanding Scripture, THEN there is a logical, rational system in place. I may not use it perfectly or well, in your estimation, but it's objectively demonstrably false to say I have "no logic" in place when it comes to understanding scripture.
It is not an uncommon rule or consideration to say, for instance, "We should strive to understand the text based upon the meanings of the original words as they would have been understood at the time." THAT is a rational consideration for ANY text. You don't have to agree with it or believe it's necessary but as a point of fact in the real world, it IS a rational consideration.
And, for followers of Jesus, interpreting everything in the Bible through the lens of what Jesus specifically taught is a rational rule to have in place, rather than subjugating Jesus' teachings through ancient Israel's rules that were specifically for Israel, for instance.
Look, here's the list that the folks at Ligonier - a very conservative traditional group of Christians - use for interpreting Scripture, which includes...
* we are to interpret Scripture according to Scripture
* we must interpret the Bible in the sense in which it is written.
* the principle that the implicit must be interpreted by the explicit
* it is always important to interpret obscure passages by those that are clear.
https://www.ligonier.org/posts/practical-principles-biblical-interpretation
This is a systemic rubric for understanding and interpreting Scripture and some of it aligns precisely with what I'm saying. But that isn't the point. The point is, IF you have a systemic process for understanding Scripture, then you are applying a logic to understanding Scripture. One need not agree with the logic or the application of the logic to note that they ARE applying a logic to their understanding.
Now, do you understand why it is literally false/non-factual to say I am not applying a logic or reasoning to my understanding of the Bible?
"Now, do you understand why it is literally false/non-factual to say I am not applying a logic or reasoning to my understanding of the Bible?"
No, and my responses A-G provide explanation for why I reject your premise.
Look...having a list of criteria doesn't imply logic or reason. To use a Dan-like analogy:
H. We interpret Scripture by how many dogs are mentioned within it.
Point H isn't logical because you put in on your list. Nor are points A-G necessarily. The system itself must be logical...as is the Ligonier list...in order to assert you're using logic and reason to interpret and understand the Bible. To that I'd say, stick to Ligonier's list and flush yours after wiping. Its too problematic as my responses clearly demonstrate.
"One need not agree with the logic or the application of the logic to note that they ARE applying a logic to their understanding."
Well, if you believe logic is subjective, you might get away with this claim. I don't think most people believe logic is subjective. Logic must involve some truth. It's logical to believe all cats like eating fish if you never see a cat refuse to eat fish. The truth of your experience with cats makes your conclusion logical. Thus, you are applying logic in feeding your new cat fish and expecting that the cat will eat it.
But very little (I'm being generous here) of your Scriptural understanding is logical based on the criteria of the Ligonier list, and no attempt by you to support your positions demonstrate logic or reasoning. You've only provided the weakest of explanations and then expect that reason exists in your conclusions because you assert you reasoned your way to them. That's not how it works. If each explanation for your positions provokes questions, and those questions either go unanswered or the answers you provide provoke more questions, this indicts your reasoning ability. This is how it usually goes with you.
For this issue of "the poor", we see the very problem to which I more than allude. Your basic argument is that when Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor" in Luke, or "I've come to bring good news to the poor" in Luke, you speak of all the occasions where Jesus encourages concern for the materially poor and then you simply assert that thus, He's speaking of the materially poor. We can indeed call that "reasoning", but it's truly weak and intellectually lazy reasoning.
You are welcome to think that the system is not logical. I think reality disagrees with your hunch.
For reasons I've noted, interpreting the Bible through the lens of Jesus' teaching IS a rational conclusion IF one is a believer in Jesus' teachings.
Interpreting all the Bible by beginning with at least trying to understand the language and context of the time/culture IS a rational conclusion, given that the Bible is passed on from many cultures and times and languages, how could one do anything else?
Interpreting the less clear passages through more clear passages is also a rational conclusion to reach. If there is a passage where the text seems to suggest that a good God might endorse enslaving people or forcible marriages of women to the men who killed their families, AND if we believe that slavery and rape/forced marriage are bad things, it's a rational thing to be critical/wary about a literal interpretation that requires a God who ordains such evils.
These ARE reasoned, rational, thought-out criteria, just in reality. You may think I apply them in a way you disagree with, but it's just irrational on your part to deny the reasoning in them.
In what POSSIBLE way should we not consider the context of language and culture they were written in? For instance. It would be irrational in the extreme to suggest we should take those words and ignore the original language or culture or context.
In what was is it NOT rational for people who believe in Jesus' teachings to interpret all the Bible through the lens of Jesus' teaching?
Your claim just evaporates under rational consideration.
Marshal... " Your basic argument is that when Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor" in Luke, or "I've come to bring good news to the poor" in Luke, you speak of all the occasions where Jesus encourages concern for the materially poor and then you simply assert that thus, He's speaking of the materially poor."
When a RICH YOUNG RULER approaches Jesus who is described as A RICH YOUNG RULER in the text, I have no reason to think that he isn't wealthy, do I? When the story continues and Jesus says, literally, "It is difficult for the wealthy to enter the realm of God..." I have no reason to think that he doesn't mean it literally. What reason would there be to make it a metaphorical rich man? There's nothing in the text or context that suggests metaphor or imagery.
When Jesus DOES get around to using imagery, he uses an image (It's easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle - an impossibility! than for a rich man to enter the realm of God) that is still referencing a literal rich person, a literal class of literal rich people.
Why would we think otherwise?
Likewise, when Jesus begins is ministry by saying he'd been appointed to bring good news to the poor, the imprisoned, the sick and to proclaim the day of God's good favor... there's nothing in the text which suggests he's being metaphorical. It's just not there. WHAT do you see in the text that suggests metaphor?
Further, Jesus is quoting Isaiah there. Isaiah 61 and in THAT text, Isaiah is speaking of the literally oppressed and poor people of Israel. People who are actually physically suffering due to poverty and oppression. Do you think that passage, likewise, is being metaphorical? WHY?
There is simply no textual or contextual reason to suggest Jesus is not speaking literally of wealthy and poor people in these passages.
Now, is it possible that there are OTHER ways to be poor and oppressed? Oppressed due to over-work, poor meaning humble and open to receiving God's help? Sure, it could ALSO have metaphorical applications. But the texts we're speaking of simply don't insist upon an ONLY METAPHORICAL meaning and that Jesus was not literally speaking of the poor and marginalized. It's just not there and you can't point to anything that objectively says otherwise. Or at least, you never have.
I wonder if Marshal would argue that it is a rational fact that god has a face? And that he's particularly handsome?
What Republicans are like these days: irrational extremists, like Marshal. Craig and Stan and the fake bagpiper are armchair brutalists. A butterfly conservatory threatens their crazed white fragility.
“A South Texas butterfly conservatory said it will temporarily close after being warned that it could be a target of a nearby rally headlined by conspiracy theorists and allies of former President Donald Trump.
The National Butterfly Center announced Friday that it would shutter until Sunday due to “credible threats” regarding activities planned during the three-day We Stand America rally in the neighboring border town of McAllen. The closure comes one week after a right-wing congressional candidate from Virginia accused the center’s staff of being “OK with children being trafficked and raped.”
The sanctuary’s director, Marianna Treviño-Wright, said she was warned by an acquaintance, former Republican state lawmaker Aaron Peña, that “she should be armed at all times or out of town this weekend” because the rally included a “Trump Train-style caravan to the border” that would likely make a stop at the butterfly center. She said she was advised that both she and the sanctuary were targets.”
"You are welcome to think that the system is not logical."
Thank you. And you're welcome to think that it is. Look at us and our mutual tolerance of each other's positions!!!
"Interpreting all the Bible by beginning with at least trying to understand the language and context of the time/culture..."
Saying it and doing it are two very different things. You do the former, but not the latter. You're certainly not doing it here.
"Interpreting the less clear passages through more clear passages is also a rational conclusion to reach."
I agree. But this is from the Ligonier list, not yours.
"If there is a passage where the text seems to suggest that a good God might endorse enslaving people or forcible marriages of women to the men who killed their families, AND if we believe that slavery and rape/forced marriage are bad things, it's a rational thing to be critical/wary about a literal interpretation that requires a God who ordains such evils."
Using one's God-give reason insists this is not an example of using the clear to interpret the unclear. This is an issue of understanding the language of the original manuscript. You prefer judging based on the English translation.
"These ARE reasoned, rational, thought-out criteria, just in reality."
No. You presume that reason, rationality and reality is represented simply because you say it is. You'd be better off using the Ligonier list than you own where those traits are clearly manifested.
"You may think I apply them in a way you disagree with, but it's just irrational on your part to deny the reasoning in them."
Again, I spoke to the obvious problems with your list. The redundancy of points C & D, and F & G alone demonstrate a lack of reasoning in the creation of the list. So to have a "rubric" which is flawed results in conclusions resulting from their application which are flawed as well, as your conclusions clearly indicate. There's also the issue of "denying the reasoning in them". This suggests that there is good reasoning, which is where I have a problem. There isn't.
"In what POSSIBLE way should we not consider the context of language and culture they were written in?"
Not an argument I made. My argument is that you don't consider such things at all, except to dismiss what you don't like without actually providing a better explanation for what's presented.
"In what was is it NOT rational for people who believe in Jesus' teachings to interpret all the Bible through the lens of Jesus' teaching?"
Except for you never having provided an example for where you've done this, it ignores the fact that Jesus is God and thus all of Scripture is His teaching.
"Your claim just evaporates under rational consideration."
Again, you simply assert "rational" and thus you insist it is so. Pretty convenient, and it allows you to reject what you don't like without a "rational" explanation.
"When a RICH YOUNG RULER approaches Jesus who is described as A RICH YOUNG RULER in the text, I have no reason to think that he isn't wealthy, do I?"
I appreciate that you quote my words and then provide an example of what my words conveyed. That story deals with a specific person who happens to be wealthy. It clearly speaks of his material wealth to describe him. And thus, you prove my point, that you will conflate all references to wealth and poverty as of material wealth and poverty exclusively. This passage has nothing to do with those which reference spiritual poverty, such as The Magnificat, the Beatitudes, Christ's reading of Isaiah 61 or Isaiah 61 itself. And you fail to consider the original language, but focus on the English word "poor" to suppose that Christ spoke of the materially poor with regard to why He came and what His mission was.
So, as your offerings of Barnes and Clarke clearly reference, the spiritually poor were those for whom Jesus brought the Good News.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/isaiah/61.html
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bcc/isaiah-61.html
https://www.preceptaustin.org/isaiah-61-commentary
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/isaiah/isaiah-61.html
https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/isaiah-61/
This theme appears in almost every commentary I've found, be it on the Luke passage or the Isaiah 61 chapter from which Christ reads. And to further sharpen the point, here's a commentary that deals heavily with the original language:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-poor-in-the-gospels-and-the-good-news-proclaimed-to-them/
Some bet hedging occurs in a few of the above, where material AND spiritual poverty is said to be expressed in the passages in question. That's debatable, but I concede it's there. What's important is how spiritual poverty is the main point in the minds of all those who provide commentary and analysis of these passages.
As to interpreting Scripture according to Scripture as stated in the Ligonier list, as well as even your own "through the lens of Christ's teachings", we still have the two sermons, one of which says "blessed are the poor in spirit", while you prefer Luke's "blessed are the poor" as if it's another sermon altogether. Some have suggested a second sermon while others speak of simply two versions of what was said, each with a different focus. Regardless, it is a major stretch to suppose Christ had two sermons with similar language which meant totally different things. Where's the "reason" and "logic" in that?
Trump says his legal jeapordy is the result of racism directed towad him. Sounds like Craig and Marshal.
Nice job conflating your opinion with scripture. Oh and modern evangelicals aren't the only ones that thought that way, so did the historic Church, but you do you.
David, you are more than welcome to comment here. But I'd ask you to not make baseless, vague, empty charges. If you'd like to critique something I've said, please do so on an adult level.
Also, you vaguely say that "modern evangelicals aren't the only ones that thought that way, so did the historic Church..." But if you want to be understood, you'll have to clarify what specifically "the historic church" thought. I have said a good number of things and I have no idea what it is that you personally think that "the historic church" thought.
If you're citing the medieval church, they thought all manner of things. Some rational and biblical, some horrible and, I'd say, terribly un-biblical/un-Christian. Which "historic church" are you speaking of.
I would sincerely love to have a conversation with you but you'll have to be more clear what it is you're addressing. If I'm truly mistaken about something, I would love for you to correct me, but you'll have to provide some clarity and some support.
I'm speaking of all the great theologians. Augustin, Aquinas, Luther, Edward's, etc. None of them taught that Christ's purpose was to elevate the poor out of their poverty. Should we care for the needs of the poor, yes. Is that the sole purpose of the Church, no. We are ordered by Christ to spread His Word to save them from damnation, not lift the poor out of their poverty. It would be foolishness to say there should be no poor, but don't be wealthy because that's bad. We need salvation from sin, not better living conditions.
David... "is that the sole purpose of the church? No."
I haven't said that caring for the needs of the poor is the sole purpose of the church. Did you know that?
I have noted that living in solidarity with the poor is a core teaching of Jesus, which it literally is. Did you know that? Do you recognize that reality? Do you understand the distinction?
Post a Comment