I had said:
"For people like me, do you realize that I/we are not saying that Scripture is unreliable? We're saying that we disagree with your human understanding of Scripture?"
No, Dan, that's not what you are saying. First, if "people like me" includes feodor, he absolutely denies the reliability of Scripture. He gets direct input from the Holy Spirit which overrides all that falsehood. But even you say that Genesis was myth, not real. You can't take it as written. You say that the Pentateuch was wrong about such things as sacrifices and sin. That would be too barbaric. You say that God didn't command Israel to wipe out that Amalekite clan. Your God wouldn't do that. You have a long list of things, Old Testament and New, that are ... wrong. Further, you adamantly argue that Scripture is not without error. Scripture is indeed wrong in places. And you don't believe it is a reliable source for morality. You don't need biblical morality when you know better. It's only partially reliable for telling us about Jesus. No, Dan, that is not any kind of a reliable Scripture, my interpretation or not.
Look at that. Dan: "I didn't say that, I don't think that."
Stan: "Yes, Dan, you DID say that and it IS what you believe."
For the record, I have never said that "Scripture is unreliable." I do not think that Scripture is unreliable.
I do not think that the pages of the Bible are "unreliable," nor do I think that God's Will is unreliable. It's literally not what I believe. I don't know that I think any group of stories are unreliable. I don't think Harry Potter is unreliable. I don't think that Carl Sagan's book, Cosmos, is unreliable. I don't think that Gilgamesh or other ancient texts are unreliable.
They're literally texts, told in a style or in a series of style. In the case of ancient stories, we do not know authoritatively what the authors' intents were. We just don't. To call such texts "unreliable," is not rational. It's text.
But, HOW we humans interpret such texts may or may not be reliable or valid or rational. You see, it's all about interpretation.
Did Jesus literally say that the reason he'd come was to preach good news to the poor and marginalized? Did he literally mean what the text says? We can't prove it one way or another, can we? But, we can look at the whole of Jesus' teachings as found in biblical text and say, GIVEN the complete text and context, it is reasonable that Jesus was speaking of literally poor and marginalized people.
Did the storytellers passing on the Genesis creation story intend it to be a literal history or something like that? Or was it simply told in the mythic style common to the day with no intention (or understanding of) modern history-telling methods? Well, we can't prove what their intentions were, but we can say the latter is a reasonable conclusion.
To consider a given biblical text to be told in a mythic, legendary, parabolic, historic or other style is NOT to say that the texts are unreliable. It's just using our God-given reasoning to try to understand the genre a story is being told in.
Disagreeing with other humans' opinions on the genre is not saying that "scripture is unreliable." It's literally just not.
Stan:
even you
say that Genesis was myth, not real.
The definition of Myth is not "Unreal." The opposite of myth is not "Real." Myth is a figurative storytelling device/genre to pass on explanations for origins of Things. Myth is NOT intended to be literal history. Literal, linear history-telling in the manner we're familiar with today just wasn't employed in any ancient texts (at least that anyone has point out to me or that I've seen). Genesis 1 and 2 are written in what appears to be a mythic style (as are other parts of Genesis). We have no reason to guess, "But MAYBE the authors/storytellers INTENDED it to be taken as a literal history, demonstrating that the universe and earth came into being in SIX literal earth days about 6,000 years ago."
That I don't presume to guess that ancient stories were written in a literal, linear historic method (or something like it) is literally NOT the same as saying Genesis was not real. Any more than saying the story of the World Turtle is not "real." It's a myth. It's a storytelling manner common to the time period. The Bible never says otherwise. God has never told us otherwise.
WHY is disagreeing with modern conservative Christians the same as dismissing the Bible or not believing the Bible? Is this not the folly of the Pharisee? "If you disagree with what WE humans are telling you what God wants, you're disagreeing with God!!!"
Just like the Pharisees, there is a need to humble ourselves. Overt arrogance and bullying is never a rational starting point.
Dan truly does know best what Dan thinks.
59 comments:
Who wrote this, Stan or Marshal, and where? “feodor, he absolutely denies the reliability of Scripture. He gets direct input from the Holy Spirit which overrides all that falsehood.”
Whoever it is they have to lie and act stupid like they can’t read because the reality of their claim on faith is a complete corruption. I’ve never said scripture is unreliable. I’ve only said god is greater than a book. They believe in a book as a stand in for god. That is blasphemy and, in effect, false, idolizing fetish of a thing. Not belief.
What Jesus says is that upon his ascension, God will remain with us in the presence and work of the Holy Spirit.
So, as the church developed and the apostles and disciples wrote scripture, we can only say, we can only act, we can only worship as Christians by reading scripture within the frame of the the revelation of the incarnate Word, the teachings of Jesus the Christ, and the victory over sin and death that is the accomplishment for everyone by the Son of God.
As the incarnation, message, and achievement of Jesus Christ is repeatedly defined by scripture as the reality and power of the love of god, it is obvious that scripture itself testifies not to itself but to the operations of a loving god, who, in the form of Jesus, promises that the Holy Spirit will continue god’s work of love with the church and the world from “here” - after the ascension - on out through the perfection of the cosmos.
It then becomes obvious to Christian belief that inspiration and guidance from scripture is the work of the Spirit, not the work of the book itself. Reliability lies solely in the perfect love of god as we understand it through the generations of Christian history.
But the “we” who must interpret scripture by the inspiration of the Spirit in order to gain reliable understanding is not an individual reading on their own. This is the corruption of Protestantism. Neither is the “we” a Vatican Council of prelates. This is the corruption of the Western Catholic Church.
The Spirit teaches us how to gain reliable understanding just as the New Testament itself testifies: the body of Christ, the Church, witnesses the love of god in real time and real events and, to absorb this experience and understand it, reflects on the meaning by reading scripture within the frame of Christ’s good news of love god for divine loving kindness. As the Church we trust the life of the Spirit to guide us in these reflections through the reading of scripture, prayerful corporate worship, and consensus decision making as the believing body of Christ.
This is what we read IN SCRIPTURE in Acts 10-145 where the first church - the church of Jerusalem - is shocked by the Spirit teaching them that the promise of redemption is open to pagan Gentiles too, and not just the Jews as scripture had claimed before the incarnation. Jesus himself did not make this new, glorious thing obvious to them.
On the basis of reflection upon scripture’s witness to the free, loving work of the Spirit, the church took its time to learn that no on is rejected by god. No one. No identity prevents anyone from the love of Jesus. The only rejection possible is by persons who choose to behave brutally not lovingly.
Christian New Testament scripture is absolutely clear about this.
Choosing brutality makes one a thug. And Stan, Marshal, Craig, the fake Scotsman, and all other condemnation-loving idiots make themselves thugs by their brutality.
Stan, at his April 19th post called "Winging it."
Given how very seriously bad they are at reading our words and understanding what we're saying (and indeed, getting our positions exactly backwards or pretty close to backwards), with our words being written specifically to them, in their language and in a shared modern culture... given that, you'd think they'd be more humble about their claims to rightly understand ancient texts like the Bible.
And it's all of them. And their commenters. They read our words and just get what we're saying wrong and wrong in multiple ways.
Stan’s words leave him in a position of denial of the living and active god in preference for a written down document.
What did Paul say about such that? Hell! What did Jesus say about that?!
They refuse to read the thing they idolize.
Do you have anything to say on topic, Marshal?
Like maybe explain why it is you all think you are so inept at reading our words and understanding what we're saying?
Or why you think you know better than us what we're saying when we tell you, "No, you've misunderstood..."?
Or why you think you may be adept at reading and understanding the words of the Bible written so long ago in other languages and cultures that you don't understand fully... when you can't even understand modern words in your language written specifically to you AND in an effort (repeated, repeated efforts) to actually help you understand?
That you read our words and think we're "screaming at you" that we find the Bible "unreliable," does not mean you're understanding either the words we're saying. Especially when we tell you, "No, that's NOT what I'm saying. At all."
You know who else was famously inept at understanding words and accepting those words with grace? The Pharisees. Amongst other antagonists throughout history.
What Marshal said that I was responding to:
Once again, there's really nothing so difficult about understanding what you two say, about who and what you two are. You've been screaming it at us for over a decade.
The rest, with an irrational and unsupported claim of racism on my part, has been deleted. Because I've been clear with Marshal that if he wants to make a fact claim here, he MUST support it with data.
To deal with Marshal's unsupported and false claim that I've engaged in racism: His allegation was that because I used the made-up term "Whitemansplaining" that this is somehow "racist." Meaning, I suppose, that I referred to a group (white men) in a negative manner that this means, I suppose, that I think white men are an inferior race.
Is that what you meant, Marshal?
That in spite of me being a white man and me not SAYING or suggesting that white men are an inferior race and that the made-up term does not insist upon that, especially given the context of a white man saying it, that you think I'm bigoted against all white men as a group because they are white men?
You see, I was referring to a specific subset of white men: Those who act in a pompous, presumptuous, negatively patriarchal manner in the context of a real world history where the mass of white men (at least here in the US and west) have been in power and used that power (directly and indirectly) to keep other people down. I'm not in any way referring to all white men as you can see in my words.
I'm dealing, rather, with that subset of rather pharisaical white men (and it could include others besides white men... it's just been dominated by white men in our real world history) - those who would pompously and falsely presume - in spite of clear evidence - that they know best. That they know best what's right for the people of color. That they know best what's right for women and "the gays." That they know better what non-conservative people are saying and that God is saying than even the people themselves. Than even God's own self, presumably.
Never mind that Jesus repeatedly referred to the poor and marginalized, YOU ALL know best that he didn't REALLY mean the poor and marginalized.
Never mind that I'm telling you and Stan, "NO. That is NOT what I said and NOT what I believe," you all have the pharisaical gall to disagree with us about what we're even thinking and saying.
It's an insanity that has come with centuries of privilege and power that's pretty unique to white men in our history (not ALL white men, but often those in power and those who are submissive to those white men in power using GOD as a stick to beat people down with). Which is why I made up the term.
It has nothing at all to do with racism, because of course, it doesn't. Therefore, your allegation was UNSUPPORTED entirely and it was unsupported because it was stupidly false. And you no longer have the liberty to make unsupported fact claims on my blog precisely for this reason.
Marshal, of course, offers zero rebuttal to my pointing out that god is living and scripture is not. It is the Spirit which breaths the life into a book. And the church as a body must deliberate together in its interpretation of scripture in the here and now… which is exactly where the Spirit lives.
None of the brutalizing christianist extremists can hold at once in their minds the divine life and love of the Spirit directing the lives of the church in common worship through liturgy and scripture.
They do not follow the living god. They spend their anxious false ideological commitment on worshipping isolated pages printed on paper, written in ink, bound between manufactured covers.
That’s not faith. That’s a vain desperate hunt for absolute security. Precisely because they reject the humility to learn from the Spirit.
“I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you.”
The living Spirit is greater than any scripture and, in fact, is the one who gives the bible any life at all. And since the divine life and love of the Spirit works in the here and now, so the the Spirit must be guiding the reflection of the church on its scriptures in the here and now.
God is not dead. God is not a book. And, as we learn in Acts 10-15, God will not be contained by letters and parchments and law. The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. This includes scripture and the reading and interpreting of it.
Where is the lie?
They'll often say to me, "So, you think that God could not give us a Bible that could be understood by regular people..."? As if disagreeing with their opinions means I think God is unreliable. And yet, at the same time, they scoff at the notion of God still speaking to us today.
[shakes head/rolls eyes]
Well… what’s obvious over the last month is that the repeated declarations by Craig and Marshal and Stan and the fake Scotsman that they don’t read what I write… is a bald faced lie.
And they openly lie when they’ve claimed that they don’t a) visit your blog and b) find anything of value in what you say.
Of course they come. Of course they read.
Because they’re trying to defend their hurt conscience from realizing they have real problem holes in the sense they try to make of their 17th century sola scripture and literal infallibility of their idol book.
Have they ever, in the last month of their heightened anxiety, ever been able to offer a clear supple Christian idea of how the Holy Spirit, the body of Christ that is the church, and scripture work to reveal God’s love?
Nope. Zero ability, so zero presented.
Now, Craig is just offering the same dodgy snark and spittle, diversion and denial that comprises the limits of Marshal’s intellectual force.
They cannot deal with Jesus’ own words, which don’t promise a book of any sort:
“I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you.
Craig has no problem facing down trolls.
A better trained and educated Christian mind is what he can’t face.
What’s with Craig and his objection that we think “God could not give us a Bible that could be understood by regular people”?
Of course scriptures were written to be understood. THAT! is exactly our position.
For the ancient world the Sun went around the sky! Diseases were demons! Conquest and enslavement normalized! People believed in the myths of fantastical monsters in the deep. A populated Hell of fire and belching brimstone below volcanic vents and thermal springs was believed! Cloven hooved animals reflected demonic work! Gods worked miracles right in front of crowds and hordes and whole nations of people! So they believed.
Yes! That’s exactly God DID do! God revealed godself into a contextual worldview and experiential language that the people could understand.
But THAT’S! our claim. Not his.
Why would electric cars be mentioned in a revelation of God? Holy Scripture gave them clarity and a profound message of faith according to their time. Not ours. A 21st century revelation would be nonsensical.
It is our task to translate and filter and fill in! And thank God the Holy Spirit for working with the church to learn ever more perfectly Divine love for humankind just as Jesus said would be the case.
They are such idiots, these thugs, that they don’t realize they need to live out of time, backwards into history, in order to believe ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING in that book of ancient scriptures.
How dumb and brutal has radical agrarian protestantism made Americans? Just gotta look at this coven of virtual thugs.
"Do you have anything to say on topic, Marshal?"
I've no doubt what you deleted of mine was totally on topic.
"Like maybe explain why it is you all think you are so inept at reading our words and understanding what we're saying?"
We understand you perfectly. That's what has your panties in such a twist. You can't stand how your own positions sound reflected accurately back at you. And you shouldn't.
"Or why you think you know better than us what we're saying when we tell you, "No, you've misunderstood..."?"
On those rare occasions when you grace us with "clarification", it only validates our conclusions rather than modifies them. Once again, you're not hard at all to understand.
"Or why you think you may be adept at reading and understanding the words of the Bible written so long ago in other languages and cultures that you don't understand fully... when you can't even understand modern words in your language written specifically to you AND in an effort (repeated, repeated efforts) to actually help you understand?"
"Adept"? To understand 66 books written for the likes of me? No particular skills are required, and where there might be some question, there are tons of Biblical scholars and theologians to clarify or verify my understanding. Why you have such a problem with it suggests very little seriousness went into your study.
As to your words, you'd be better off not trying to clarify as your attempts are convoluted and do nothing to improve what your original words conveyed well enough.
"That you read our words and think we're "screaming at you" that we find the Bible "unreliable," does not mean you're understanding either the words we're saying. Especially when we tell you, "No, that's NOT what I'm saying. At all.""
You know what would help? Providing a clear explanation of what you ARE saying and evidence to back it up. Screaming at us by saying, "No, that's NOT what I'm saying. At all." is just the long way of saying "Nyuh uh".
" You know who else was famously inept at understanding words and accepting those words with grace? The Pharisees."
Unlike the Pharisees, I've never added to Scripture what Scripture doesn't say. This is the problem Christ had with them...the extra crap...like what you and feo inject into Christianity. It's not a matter of not understanding anything, and you routinely refuse and/or fail to provide a more compelling alternative understanding, with or without evidence to support it.
No. Your problem's not with us. Your problem is with yourself. We read you loudly and clearly.
"Never mind that Jesus repeatedly referred to the poor and marginalized, YOU ALL know best that he didn't REALLY mean the poor and marginalized."
Never mind that you've provided nothing to confirm Christ was speaking of material wealth. You all know best that He did simply because the word "poor" or "enslaved" was used. I've provided scholarly explanation for Christ's words dealing with the original language, and you summarily deleted it in your typical cowardice and dishonesty.
"Never mind that I'm telling you and Stan, "NO. That is NOT what I said and NOT what I believe," you all have the pharisaical gall to disagree with us about what we're even thinking and saying."
Yeah, Dan. We got that. ""NO. That is NOT what I said and NOT what I believe, Wah, wah, wah, sniffle, boo-hoo". We get it. Yet, you continue to express yourself in ways which cannot provoke any but the conclusions we've derived. You whine. You never clarify. And before you know it, thousands of keystrokes are wasted on your whiny objection, rather than what's necessary to clarify what you insist is misunderstood. Yet we endure.
"It's an insanity that has come with centuries of privilege and power that's pretty unique to white men in our history (not ALL white men, but often those in power and those who are submissive to those white men in power using GOD as a stick to beat people down with). Which is why I made up the term."
Well first of all, white men are not unique in being in positions of power. So that's just a bullshit line of reasoning right there. Secondly, there's nothing insane about repeating what Scripture plainly says about the things you find inconvenient and then reject. Thirdly, if repeating the truth feels to you like being beaten with a stick, that's an indictment of your character and further evidence of your false claim to be Christian. Clearly, as you have no conscience, repeating truth to you doesn't inhibit your desire to indulge in evil. So why are you whining about "white patriarchy"? Clearly it's just to help you to feel superior when you're clearly in rebellion.
"It has nothing at all to do with racism, because of course, it doesn't. Therefore, your allegation was UNSUPPORTED entirely and it was unsupported because it was stupidly false. And you no longer have the liberty to make unsupported fact claims on my blog precisely for this reason."
By your own words you again prove yourself an inveterate liar. You purposely chose to bring race into a discussion where race plays no role whatsoever, just to attack my character. So racism or not, you're the asshole here and there's no doubt about it. Your tap-dancing doesn't change that, and your deletion of this comment won't either.
"They'll often say to me, "So, you think that God could not give us a Bible that could be understood by regular people..."? As if disagreeing with their opinions means I think God is unreliable. And yet, at the same time, they scoff at the notion of God still speaking to us today.
[shakes head/rolls eyes]"
Yet you insist we're not understanding Scripture when we present that which you find inconvenient. THAT is when you should be providing a fact-based alternative for what you find so disagreeable about what we regular people understand Scripture is saying.
God is saying to us the very same things He said in Scripture and no more. You have no way to support your claims about what God might or might not bless or do or like or dislike which isn't already stated clearly in Scripture. So don't condescend to us. Make your case like an actual adult.
Never mind that you've provided nothing to confirm Christ was speaking of material wealth.
Marshal, you're repeating UNSUPPORTED and stupidly false claims over and over. This HAS been answered, over and over.
First of all, the words that Jesus that Jesus used. POOR, for instance. That is the first hint that Jesus is speaking of the poor, when he mentions specifically THE POOR. Why would we assume he doesn't mean THE POOR when he says the poor?
Oh, I know, the Greek and Hebrew words. THEY probably mean "Poor: Not really poor, but more of some sort of humble or spiritually needy..."
But they don't.
The Hebrew word for poor (anavim) in Isaiah 61:1 means, “poor, needy, afflicted” and stems from the Hebrew word ana which means, “to be afflicted”—those afflicted in life, generally speaking, and those afflicted by oppression and injustice.
The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) used the Greek word ptochos to translate this Hebrew word and it was, as mentioned, the word Luke used in his Gospel account. The word means, “reduced to beggary, destitute of status, lacking in anything”.
Thus Biblically, the word included…
people with limited financial resources,
people of low social status—the marginalised of society, including women and children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and the like,
people who are social outsiders—those of other ethnic groups,
and people whose poor life choices placed them outside of society’s acceptable religious and cultural circles.
https://abetterfuturenow.com/what-does-ptochos-poor-mean/#2
cont'd...
Also, that Jesus repeatedly used the terms when speaking to literal outsiders, the regular people, the poor ones, those with disabilities or who were kept "outside" because of their "uncleanness." Jesus was literally repeatedly speaking of the literally poor and marginalized. Over and over and over.
Further, you can see it in Jesus' repeated connections and contrasts with "the Rich," which word again in the Hebrew and Greek means just what it says. Those with affluence, with material wealth.
Jesus came just as he literally said, to preach good news and welcome and grace to the literally poor and marginalized. HOW do we know? Because of his words. IF we take his words seriously, we can't just spiritualize/turn them into imagery on a whim. Put shortly, given the whole of Jesus' teachings, we take the words literally because there is simply no reason to guess that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in those cases.
In saying, "Blessed are you who are poor... WOE to you who are rich..." it becomes meaningless if we make it a metaphor. WHO are the "rich in spirit..." and why would there be woe to them? WHY did Jesus tell John the Baptist, "Tell him I've been preaching good news to the poor and healing for the sick..." if he didn't mean just what it sounds like?
As I've been saying to you for something like 20 years, now. You just CAN'T reasonably say I haven't explained why I take Poor to mean poor, to confirm why I hold that reasonable, textual position.
That's just one example of you making an unsupported and stupidly false claim, Marshal. Your comments above (which will probably be deleted) are full of such unsupported claims.
YOU, Marshal, have one main rule to live by here on my blog: IF you make a fact claim, then you MUST support it with objective proof.
IF you want to make a subjective opinion claim, that is fine, but then you MUST be clear: This is my, Marshal's, unproven opinion.
Thus, when you make this unsupported claim:
God is saying to us the very same things He said in Scripture and no more.
The implication is that your human presumptions about what Scripture says ARE what God says... and that's begging the question. The question is not, "Given that Jesus repeatedly referred to the poor AND given that Jesus meant that metaphorically, what proof do you have that he didn't mean it metaphorically?"
The question is: "Jesus repeatedly spoke of the poor and marginalized and in contrast with the rich and powerful oppressors. Did Jesus somehow mean that metaphorically or is it best understood in a more literal manner?"
You see, you're starting with the presumption that YOUR opinions are objectively factual and literally what God thinks and then demanding proof that you're mistaken, that you've misunderstood. You can't start with a presumption on something that isn't proven and demand others "prove you wrong..." that's question begging and frankly, pharisaical. Literally.
I had said:
"They'll often say to me, "So, you think that God could not give us a Bible that could be understood by regular people..."? As if disagreeing with their opinions means I think God is unreliable. And yet, at the same time, they scoff at the notion of God still speaking to us today."
Marshal responded:
Yet you insist we're not understanding Scripture when we present that which you find inconvenient. THAT is when you should be providing a fact-based alternative for what you find so disagreeable about what we regular people understand Scripture is saying.
Using the "poor" discussion as a starting point:
1. I'm not the one saying regular people can't understand Scripture. I'M a regular person and I think I understand it fine, generally speaking. My church is full of regular people and I know people like Feodor... some perhaps with more education than others, but still, regular people. I'm literally not saying that the Bible can't be understood by regular people. I'm literally saying the opposite.
As a point of observable, demonstrable fact that anyone can see who reads my words.
Do you acknowledge that reality?
Answer THAT question, not some other version of a question related to it that isn't the question being asked.
2. When people like you say that in all these instances of Jesus (Mary, James, the prophets, Paul, etc) speaking of and to the poor and marginalized and about/warnings to the rich and powerful, the oppressors, I have no reason to think you're understanding the words correctly. Not JUST because those are words in the Bible, but because we see the harm that has been done to the poor and oppressed in the world - harm to the poor and oppressed, to the environment, to systems of Justice and even to the rich and powerful. Oppression hurts everyone involved, observably. It damages society and the world.
Thus, when Jesus speaks this truth to power (as he literally does over and over), I think Jesus should be taken literally NOT because of some words in an ancient texts, but because the Truths being spoken are rational, good, loving, just. Observably so.
You see, as I've been very clear, I do not take the Bible as a magic rulings book which is THE SOLE SOURCE for finding answers of morality and reason. For those who do that, who think that their opinions about their interpretations about the words in the Bible are the same as God's Word, I find that to be problematic biblically and rationally.
Thus, if some are saying that Jesus' words about the poor and rich are to be taken metaphorically, I disagree because of what is obvious in the text and beyond the text, in the world at large.
3. Thus, I'm not saying that regular people can't understand it. I'm literally not saying that at all. I'm saying that I think YOU, Marshal, are missing the point of the text when you try to suggest it should not be taken to mean the literal poor and marginalized, the literal rich and oppressive. And I'm saying that because I disagree with your notion that there are textual reasons to take Jesus in a not-literal manner in those cases.
4. Given all that, how am I NOT giving a fact-based answer to you when I disagree with your human interpretation of those texts?
Dan:
"Like maybe explain why it is you all think you are so inept at reading our words and understanding what we're saying?"
Marshal:
We understand you perfectly. That's what has your panties in such a twist. You can't stand how your own positions sound reflected accurately back at you.
But I literally do NOT believe that Scripture is unreliable. It doesn't matter if you respond back 1,000 times, "nyuh uh! You DO say that Scripture is unreliable! So, nyaa!" That is not a rational response, nor does it hold any water in an adult conversation.
Tell me, is this what you are trying to say:
Dan, even IF you think you take the Bible to be reliable,
when you say,
"Genesis reads like myth and we have no biblical or rational reason to take it as literal history..."
you are demonstrating that you think the Bible is unreliable...
Is that what you're trying to say?
I think it probably is. After all, that's almost literally what Stan offered as his "reasoning."
The problem is that this is not a rational adult proof of anything significant.
IDENTIFYING GENRE DOES NOT MEAN THE TEXT IS UNRELIABLE.
If someone takes Jesus' parables to be fiction, IF someone takes the Psalms to be written as poetry or song, IF someone takes Harry Potter to be magical fiction/fantasy... NONE of that means any disrespect to any of those texts. NONE of that means we think those texts are unreliable. Even if we wrongly identify the genre ("actually, Harry Potter was science fiction, with some history added to it...") that doesn't mean that we think the text is unreliable.
Do YOU think that, because you identify Jesus' parables as fiction/not literal, that means you think Jesus' words there are unreliable?
No, of course, you don't think that.
Identifying the genres being used does NOT indicate a belief that the text is unreliable, it just doesn't.
Therefore, if that is the whole of your argument, it's a rational failure. It's not correct. It holds no rational water. Do you understand that?
"Marshal, you're repeating UNSUPPORTED and stupidly false claims over and over. This HAS been answered, over and over."
First, I supported my position but you deleted it. I requested assurance that you would not delete it again if I presented my supportive evidence again and received not even an acknowledgement that I made the request, much less the assurance I requested. So I'm not repeating "unsupported and stupidly false claims over and over." That's a lie.
Secondly, if what follows is your attempt to confirm you've answered my question, it doesn't now any more than it did however many times you submitted your definitions for the purpose. Think of it this way: how much debate continues over the meaning of "militia" in the 2nd Amendment? Quite a bit, but the best interpretation includes acknowledging how those at the time it was written and ratified understood the usage of that word, as well as others. The same goes here. You need to believe that those in the time of Christ were abject morons unable to understand Him. That's true in some cases, but not necessarily in all and the fact that He used any word does not mean it MUST!!! mean one thing and one thing only. By your measure, "laying up treasure in heaven" means having a big bank account there. Does that make sense to you? Are you going to suggest material wealth is intended there, too? Why not? The passage speaks of "treasure". Why would anyone think it means something other than material wealth?
So Christ's reading of Isaiah in the temple referred to spiritual matters, not material wealth, physical infirmity or actual incarceration in a building.
Those are ALL unsupported claims. Subjective opinions. Period.
I'm guessing you (and yours) just don't understand that and I don't know how to help you.
There is a difference between, on the one hand, subjective opinions (much of what you offer) and false claims (the other part of much of what you offer) and on the other hand, objectively proven claims and reasonable claims.
That you may offer REASONS why TO YOU, you personally reach a conclusion does not mean that it's been objectively proven or demonstrated to be a valid subjective opinion, even.
Questions Marshal must answer to comment here:
Why would we assume he doesn't mean THE POOR when he says the poor?
Do the Hebrew and Greek words imply something beyond materially poor and marginalized and oppressed?
No, they don't.
Is the appearance of the word, "poor" something that only occurs once or twice in the Bible? No, it appears regularly. Along with Rich and Oppressed and other words in this vein.
Culturally, did people back then assume that "poor" meant something other than poor?
I've seen no one present that case with any authority.
Were the terms for the "poor" and "marginalized" used in contrast with the words for "rich..." and "oppressor..."? Yes, regularly.
Look, I'm not saying (as I've repeatedly noted) that there might not be OTHER implications for poor/rich. We might well speak of "poor" as in humble spiritually. But not in exclusion to the primary meaning of the word obvious in the text.
Unless you present something to the contrary, should I just assume that you have a low view of Scripture and you think it is unreliable?
"Also, that Jesus repeatedly used the terms when speaking to literal outsiders, the regular people, the poor ones, those with disabilities or who were kept "outside" because of their "uncleanness." Jesus was literally repeatedly speaking of the literally poor and marginalized. Over and over and over."
Where does it say He only spoke to "regular" or materially poor and disabled people? Anywhere? I don't think so. But let's pretend you know about what you speak: speaking to literally poor people doesn't mean He's speaking about literally poor people.
The bulk of your argument is simply repeating "Nyuh uh! He means materially poor people!"
"Jesus came just as he literally said, to preach good news and welcome and grace to the literally poor and marginalized. HOW do we know? Because of his words."
Please cite chapter and verse wherein Christ says, "I've come to bring Good News to the literally poor." I'll wait here.
"In saying, "Blessed are you who are poor... WOE to you who are rich..." it becomes meaningless if we make it a metaphor."
Not at all. Only to modern progressives, not actual Christians.
"WHY did Jesus tell John the Baptist, "Tell him I've been preaching good news to the poor and healing for the sick..." if he didn't mean just what it sounds like?"
What it sounds like to you and what it meant to John the Baptist are not the same things.
"As I've been saying to you for something like 20 years, now. You just CAN'T reasonably say I haven't explained why I take Poor to mean poor, to confirm why I hold that reasonable, textual position."
Insisting it means what you prefer because it means what you prefer is hardly a reasonable explanation.
"That's just one example of you making an unsupported and stupidly false claim, Marshal. Your comments above (which will probably be deleted) are full of such unsupported claims."
I've supported every "claim" I've made even if I haven't done it YET AGAIN exhaustively and comprehensively with scholarly backing as well as other evidences now. It's a lie to say otherwise. In the meantime, saying "It means 'materially poor' because it uses the word 'poor'!" is not support for your claim. It's just reasserting your premise. And you'll delete because the difference between my having satisfied your every petulant demand contrasts so starkly with your inability or willingness to provide in the manner you expect of me. In short...your cowardice.
"YOU, Marshal, have one main rule to live by here on my blog: IF you make a fact claim, then you MUST support it with objective proof."
I've suspended complying until I see the same from you. Hiding behind opinion as if opinion doesn't require a legit basis in fact is cowardice, and to demand of me what you won't provide is fascistic of you modern progressives. Thus, I won't do again what I've already done unless you can prove your claim that I've never provided support for any position I present. Delete away and then pretend you care about "good faith, adult" discourse.
"IF you want to make a subjective opinion claim, that is fine, but then you MUST be clear: This is my, Marshal's, unproven opinion."
When I'm submitting opinion, there's no doubt. I'm not obliged to support anything that's true as if you're never obliged to prove it isn't. That's not "good faith, adult" discourse. That's you cancelling truth you have no ability or willingness to debunk.
What's more, this "rule" of yours is as fungible and malleable as every other inane rule of yours. As such, it's been made crystal clear that you will adapt them to whatever situation in which you've found yourself again exposed as false and in error...painted in another corner. Every utterance is a claim which must be accompanied by a freakin' thesis or dissertation. Borrow a spine and engage like a man.
"Thus, when you make this unsupported claim:"
"God is saying to us the very same things He said in Scripture and no more."
"The implication is that your human presumptions about what Scripture says ARE what God says..."
First of all, the error here is that my statement was in direct response to an unsupported claim you made: " And yet, at the same time, they scoff at the notion of God still speaking to us today."
I don't recall ANYONE of us "scoffing" at the notion of God still speaking to us today. Your self-serving and unsupported implication is that He is saying something He's not already said to us in Scripture.
Secondly, I don't "presume" a damned thing about what Scripture says. You object to exact presentations of passages and verses used to support a position and then suggest we're not understanding those passages and verses while NEVER providing a legitimate, evidence-backed alternative to our understanding...as I've done with your constant weak and unsupported understanding of Jesus' reading of Isaiah in the temple.
"The question is: "Jesus repeatedly spoke of the poor and marginalized and in contrast with the rich and powerful oppressors. Did Jesus somehow mean that metaphorically or is it best understood in a more literal manner?"
You see, you're starting with the presumption that YOUR opinions are objectively factual and literally what God thinks and then demanding proof that you're mistaken, that you've misunderstood. You can't start with a presumption on something that isn't proven and demand others "prove you wrong..." that's question begging and frankly, pharisaical. Literally."
And again you lie. You lie that my position is mere presumption without basis, after having deleted my comments in which I provided that basis. You then refused an honest adult response to my repeated request that you not delete that support again should I choose to submit it for posting. This implies that you know you've again painted yourself in a corner and think you can get out by pretending my support doesn't exist. Well, it appears at the end of this comment and I fully expect you to man up and leave it standing for all to read, and if you want to pretend it's not compelling, you're obliged to provide the thesis level explanation for why that is as you demand of me and everyone else who bests you so easily.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-poor-in-the-gospels-and-the-good-news-proclaimed-to-them/
Don't just skim it. READ IT...STUDY IT...know what it says to an extent you can speak of it in an educated manner and then bring something of it's like which is a legit counter to it. THAT is what support looks like and THAT is what you never bring to support your objections and weak claims.
Craig writes, "I think that this position requires ignoring certain texts, and how the NT writers+Jesus spoke about the Hebrew Scriptures. It seems germane to note that the NT writers+Jesus spoke of scripture that were specifically speaking of the Hebrew scriptures, and seemed to hold those in high esteem."
I can forgive Craig this naive view given that he doesn't have the resources for any knowledgable investigation of the linguistic and philosophical backgrounds of the writers of the NT documents.
Just to quickly note that it is well known, for example, that the writings of Paul, a highly educated Hellenistic Jew (living In an intellectual culture saturated with Greek and Roman philosophy and literature) combined the life of Jesus with Greek philosophy to reinterpret the Hebrew Bible in terms of the Platonic opposition between the ideal (which is real) and the material (which is false).
"Do you acknowledge that reality?"
I acknowledge the actual reality that you'll routinely negate the only conclusions others can draw from your own words if those conclusions expose your errors. You'll insist "I never said that", when in fact you did more than you evidently intended. Our conclusions are based on a far more direct relationship with the actual words you use in explaining yourself than the many instances of you imposing on our words that which our words can't possibly convey. This has been an ongoing issue over the many years of engagement with you. You are far less clear than Scripture ever is, yet you pretend that our alleged inability to understand what your words never convey indicates comprehension problems on our part which puts our understanding of Scripture in question. How convenient.
To be more direct, you rarely (I'm embracing grace here by implying it ever happens at all) have a grasp of what honest people would regard as "reality". Stop asking that question until you can get said grip.
"Answer THAT question, not some other version of a question related to it that isn't the question being asked."
This is hilariously ironic given your history of answering questions never asked in favor of those you imagine.
"2. When people like you say that in all these instances...."
There's really only one "instance" in question here. You like to conflate all mentions of wealth and poverty as if they are all saying the same things. This purposeful dilution doesn't help your case with the "instances" on the table. My supportive link focuses on the issue you continue to bring up and supports my position perfectly. Address that and leave all other mentions of wealth/poverty and rich/poor for specific discussion on them.
"Not JUST because those are words in the Bible, but because we see the harm that has been done to the poor and oppressed in the world - harm to the poor and oppressed, to the environment, to systems of Justice and even to the rich and powerful. Oppression hurts everyone involved, observably. It damages society and the world."
None of this has anything to do with the Luke passage of Jesus reading from Isaiah. Focus.
"Thus, when Jesus speaks this truth to power (as he literally does over and over), I think Jesus should be taken literally NOT because of some words in an ancient texts, but because the Truths being spoken are rational, good, loving, just. Observably so."
Now you're just rambling and scrambling for something to avoid your obligation.
"You see, as I've been very clear, I do not take the Bible as a magic rulings book which is THE SOLE SOURCE for finding answers of morality and reason."
There is no other source, for without God there is no morality, but only majority opinion regarding which behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable. Such are not binding. Only God's Word is binding on a Christian regarding issues of morality. There is no other source for discovering God's Word on morality but the Bible. None. Dan Trabue's "reason" certainly isn't an intelligent, reasonable or reliable source, and that's for damned sure.
"For those who do that, who think that their opinions about their interpretations about the words in the Bible are the same as God's Word, I find that to be problematic biblically and rationally."
The problem for you is that when repeating God's Word, it is exactly the same as God's Word and thus Biblical, too. How can it not be? What you find problematic is that God's Word is so often inconvenient for you, not that we're promoting that which is not Biblically clear. And again, it is at this point where you could be providing evidence to suggest your alternative understanding is more likely, yet you never do. Ever. You simply whine about our accurate presentation of what is clear.
"I'm saying that I think YOU, Marshal, are missing the point of the text when you try to suggest it should not be taken to mean the literal poor and marginalized, the literal rich and oppressive. And I'm saying that because I disagree with your notion that there are textual reasons to take Jesus in a not-literal manner in those cases."
Where's your evidence? I've provided mine. You delete it without any attempt to debunk it. I'm not going to continue providing evidence you won't address and then pretend was never presented. Step up to the plate and take your swings like a big boy.
"4. Given all that, how am I NOT giving a fact-based answer to you when I disagree with your human interpretation of those texts?"
Given all what? You've done nothing to provide a fact-based answer. You've simply presented a more wordy "Nyuh uh", or as you might put it...your answer is no more than an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
"IDENTIFYING GENRE DOES NOT MEAN THE TEXT IS UNRELIABLE."
That would be more meaningful if you weren't constantly using the "genre" argument to dismiss that which you don't believe is true or recorded as having happened in the way the OT presents it. This cannot mean anything less than in every case where you play this "genre" game, you're insisting Scripture isn't reliably presenting actual events.
"Do YOU think that, because you identify Jesus' parables as fiction/not literal, that means you think Jesus' words there are unreliable?"
Really? You're trying this crap yet again? Christ's parables are presented as parables. Is the OT? No. The Psalms are written as songs/poems. Is the OT? No. Harry Potter is presented as fictional stories. Is the OT? No. But even the myths of ancient Rome and Greece aren't presented as "myths", yet you try to pretend the OT is. The OT is presented as historical presentations of actual events. (Before you try to worm your way out of this exposure of your failure, it doesn't matter if Greece and Rome regarded their myths as reality. Their pagan faiths are pagan faiths which are by definition, fictions.) Your insistence they're of some "genre" which allows one to overlook that is a lie to protect your modern progressive agenda.
" Therefore, if that is the whole of your argument, it's a rational failure. It's not correct. It holds no rational water. Do you understand that?"
I understand you're trying to rationalize your crap sandwich. It's still crap and "genre" is a dishonest way to legitimize your rejection of that which you personally find objectionable. Your view of the "genre" of the OT necessarily renders it unreliable. It suggests we can't believe the events presented happened as presented, even though you condescend to accept "truths" which aren't reliable given your dismissal of the context in which they might be revealed.
You've painted yourself in a corner once again. Give it up.
"Questions Marshal must answer to comment here:"
*yawn*
"Why would we assume he doesn't mean THE POOR when he says the poor?"
That's a strange question. Who is "we"? I've no doubt that those like you who only say they've seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture might assume anything. Those of us who do learn.
"Do the Hebrew and Greek words imply something beyond materially poor and marginalized and oppressed?"
Yes. Aside from the fact that the two languages don't always have parallels in for any particular word, usage makes a difference. For example, if I say, "...and the cock crowed three times", "cock" means something specific. But if I say, "Dan thinks he's the cock of the walk!" it doesn't mean I'm saying you're a rooster. That's not an exact parallel to how "poor" in either of the ancient languages is used in the specific passage we're discussing (Luke 4:18), but it's close enough for city work.
"Is the appearance of the word, "poor" something that only occurs once or twice in the Bible? No, it appears regularly. Along with Rich and Oppressed and other words in this vein."
Doesn't matter how often they appear. What matters is the context in which they appear which determines their meaning. So this doesn't help you at all.
"Culturally, did people back then assume that "poor" meant something other than poor?"
If you are suggesting the people back then were no more than hapless, ignorant rubes with no powers of understanding, you'll believe anything. I would assume in a culture where Scripture looms large, they had enough understanding to know when a word meant one thing in one context versus what it means in another. I'm sure they'd be pleased with your condescending attitude of their intelligence.
"I've seen no one present that case with any authority."
Not only have I presented just such a case with my link, the author provides other links which affirm his solid argument. Now it's up to you to provide something more compelling in the other direction. I'll wait here while you just delete me again instead.
"Were the terms for the "poor" and "marginalized" used in contrast with the words for "rich..." and "oppressor..."? Yes, regularly."
That's funny. You say that like it means something compelling.
"Look, I'm not saying (as I've repeatedly noted) that there might not be OTHER implications for poor/rich. We might well speak of "poor" as in humble spiritually. But not in exclusion to the primary meaning of the word obvious in the text."
I'm quite certain I've never stated that's the case every or anytime the words are mentioned. However, in the case of Luke 4:18, as well in other cases, that's absolutely the case if one wishes to choose which has priority. As my source clearly affirms, speaking of poor in spiritual terms doesn't negate the material even in the case of Luke 4:18 or the Isaiah passage from which it was drawn. Christ's mission was a spiritual one and thus, His teachings were spiritual in nature as well. My link explains all this. Study it as if you're actually concerned about truth.
"Unless you present something to the contrary, should I just assume that you have a low view of Scripture and you think it is unreliable?"
I did already, unless you deleted it again instead of reading like one concerned about understanding Scripture. At some point you have to stop posturing as a Christian and actually be one.
From your source...
At the same time, it was recognized that even with plenty of charity the rich and powerful would tend to oppress the righteous. In other words, in this world, righteousness tended to make one economically poor. Therefore it was eventually accepted that the community of the righteous was in all likelihood the community of the poor and that the righteous poor of this age will reap the reward of their good deeds only in the age to come29 (cf. above, the post-exilic and Qumran writings).
Summary
Our evidence shows that in the time of the OT the term ‘poor’ originally meant those who had no inheritance of their own, those who were in economic need, and also those who had a low and insignificant social status. However, from the period of the monarchy until the inter-testamental period, including up to Jesus’ time, the term was strongly applied to those who, in lowliness and humility, lived in dependence on God. This, however, does not mean that the understanding of ‘poor’ in socio-economic and political terms disappeared.
Still reading, but so far, this guy is making my case.
Dan
More from your source...
G.M. Soares-Prabhu argues that Luke’s omission of ‘broken hearted’ and the addition of ‘oppressed’ are to prevent a spiritualizing interpretation of the text, for the expression ‘to heal the broken-hearted’ is open to such spiritualizing and the idea of setting the oppressed free has a strong social thrust.30 He goes on to say that the social emphasis of the Jubilee year of Leviticus 25, to which the Isaianic prophecy expressly refers, and Luke’s deliberate avoidance of spiritualizing the text show that Luke 4:18–19 is to be understood in a strongly social sense. That is, for him, the salvation Jesus announces here is primarily a liberation from the pressures of social, economic and societal oppression.
Again, this is what I've been saying. Still reading...
Dan
Feodor, I see where you're trying to comment. It's not going through for some reason.
Dan
Here's what Feodor has been trying to post that hasn't gone through successfully for reasons unknown (even though it shows up in my mailbox as an attempted post...):
"Marshal will find little comfort from this Jesus. His brutalizing helicopter engineer “Bible Bubbas” don’t understand the words for hunger, thirst, strangers, nakedness.
When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You who are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.”
More from your source, Marshal:
Bruce Malina, who has studied the understanding of wealth and poverty in the NT world, observes that the terms ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ in first-century Mediterranean social systems indicate not so much the economic status as the two poles of society.18 While on a morally neutral level, says Malina, the rich and the poor marked the extremes of the social body in terms of élite and non-élite status,
in a moral context ‘rich’ referred to
those powerful due to greed, avarice and exploitation and
‘poor’ referred to those who were weak and unable to
maintain their honour and dignity in society.19
By arguing that the vocabulary and system of distinctions in the theology of the Bible worked in kinship and politics,20 he rightly maintains that the NT concepts of poor and rich took the cultural values of the first century seriously.21
In similar vein, P.H. Davids points out that, religiously and socially,
the rich people in first-century Judaism were:
the observant Jewish leaders,
such as high-priestly families who, in practice,
oppressed the lower clergy;
the landowners who abused their tenants and hired labourers (cf. Jas. 5:1–6);
the merchants who controlled much of the economic life of the country;
and those who were associated with the Herodians and Romans and
whose political power enabled them to increase their wealth in terms of lands.22
He also shows that while the middle class consisted of artisans, land-owning farmers, merchants, and socially, if not economically, the lower clergy,
those who were labelled ‘poor’ were the peasants or the ‘people of the land (עָם הָאָדֶץ)’.23
This group included small landowners
who were dependent on the harvest for their livelihood,
tenant farmers who had to pay their dues to their landlords before
providing for their own families,
hired labourers, fishermen, carpenters, slaves, both Jewish and Gentile, and
beggars.24
Further, there were scribes who were living, particularly in Jerusalem, entirely on charity or relief.25 We may also include in this list the travelling evangelists and missionaries (cf. Mt. 10:8–10 par.; Phil. 4:15–18; 2 Thes. 3:8–9; Acts 18:3).
Thus, as Davids puts it,
the poor in the NT period
‘lived on the edge of existence even in the best of times,
for to be in an agricultural economy without owning sufficient productive land
to provide security is to be economically marginal’.
Again, thanks for making my case so much stronger.
Still reading...
As I continue to read your source, I can't help but wonder
1. If you're understanding what these people are saying and/or
2. If you've been understanding what I've been saying
From your source:
The word ‘poor’ is used in the NT about 34 times,
in which it translates the Greek word πτωχός 31 times,
the word πένης once, πενιχός once, and the verb πτωχεύω once.
There are several passages in the NT which use ‘poor’ of people who are
lowly in social status—the hungry, beggars, the politically powerless—
and who have to depend on others’ mercy and help to survive
(see Mt. 25:34–36, 41–43; Mk. 10:21 par.; 12:41–44; 14:3–9 par.; Lk. 16:20–22; 19:8; Jas. 2:3–6).
There are some passages which list the poor along with the physically handicapped, such as the blind, the lame, lepers, the deaf, and with the dead (see Mt. 11:4–5; Lk. 7:22; 14:13–21; Rev. 3:17).
However, the following two passages refer to the Good News as
meant for the poor and hence are important for our discussion:
Luke 4:18–19 (cf. Mt. 11:4–5; Lk. 7:22) and Matthew 5:3.
From there (and getting so much obviously right, seems to me) he seems to waffle back and forth between trying to spiritualize Jesus' comments about the rich and poor AND by returning to "But it IS talking about the actual poor." As in this comment:
Our evidence thus strongly suggests that
even though most of the people in Jesus’ time lived in economic poverty and
low social status, for some, at least, poverty was caused by
their faith commitment to Christ and to divine righteousness.
The missionary agenda of Jesus tabulated in Luke 4:18–19 seems to be mainly concerned with the spiritual aspect of poverty...
And here, he does not say why, he just asserts it. Continuing:
...although the social/economic/political dimensions of poverty
are not missing.
Luke’s references to literal poverty warrant this conclusion
(Lk. 14:13, 21; 16:20, 22; 18:22; 19:8; 21:3).
This is also confirmed by the connection that exists between Luke 4:18 and 7:22 with the literal application in 7:2141. For Luke, then, Jesus’ ministry to the poor has two sides: on the one hand, his gospel, having liberating power,
is meant for those who are socially/economically/politically
in a humiliated position and for those who are physically sick and suffering;
and on the other hand, the gospel is set to those who, irrespective of their socio-economic condition...,
Again, asserted with no support that I see. (This IS a thick piece of writing and perhaps a bit scholarly - or attempting to be scholarly - and maybe I've missed his case... I just don't see it.) Continuing...
...humbly accept their wretchedness before God and decide to live in dependence on him.
Again, so far - EVEN WHEN he waffles in favor sort of kind of a sort of "spiritualized" or metaphorical reference to poverty - he keeps coming back to "But yes, we're definitely speaking of the actual poor and oppressed."
Still reading...
From your source:
Now the question is:
Drum roll, please...
what is the good news proclaimed to the poor and expressed in this passage?
In the light of the Isaianic passage
we can summarize the content of the gospel as follows:
God meets in Christ the poor, the imprisoned, the blind and the oppressed.
CLEARLY in agreement/alignment with what I have been saying for decades now. Do you suspect that your author here is ALSO speaking metaphorically or do you agree that at this point at least, he is speaking of literally "the poor, the imprisoned, the blind and the oppressed..."?
The good news that God takes an interest in them [the poor and marginalized - DT]
and comes to them in order to release them from their bondage
is communicated to the underprivileged in and through Jesus Christ
just as it was communicated to the Israelites in exile by Isaiah (Is. 61:3).
For Jesus himself became poor (2 Cor. 8:9),
belonging to the people of the land,
as the son of a carpenter who owned neither land nor a house
(cf. Mt. 8:20 par.).43
He accepted tax-collectors, prostitutes and sinners and even
ate with them, not only to identify with them but also to transform them.
I'm puzzled, Marshal: Are you guessing that when this guy here says the underprivileged and that Jesus became poor, that he isn't speaking of literally underprivileged and poor?
Even to the slight degree that this fella might disagree slightly with me, he appears to be more often than not making my exact case and doing so in excruciating detail (excruciating for you, that is).
From your source (where he starts with a tortured sounding leap to Pauline-sounding ideas foreign to what we've been reading thus far) (NOTE: Not that I think Paul's words are in contrast to Jesus', just that Paul's texts don't focus on poverty and wealth to the degree found in the Gospels and in Acts - and in the OT):
In Pauline terms,
Christ brought freedom from the yoke of slavery and the
curse of legal obligation by himself becoming a curse for us (Gal. 3:13–14).
Where does that come from and how does it fit with what he's been saying thus far?
By omitting Isaiah’s reference to ‘the day of vengeance of our God’
but retaining the expression ‘the year of the Lord’s favour’,
Luke highlights the love and favour of God revealed in Jesus
TO THE POOR.
The whole work of Jesus, particularly exorcism,
was a sign of the reality that the kingdom of God had
already come to the poor
(Lk. 11:20 = Mt. 21:28; Lk. 17:21).
The meaning of the act of freeing the slaves in the Jubilee year is
fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus (cf. Lk. 4:21).
The same idea is to be seen in the next passage of our inquiry, Luke 6:20 (= Mt. 5:3), to which we now turn.
Again, do you think this guy is NOT referring to the literal poor in this text, at least as a starting point? If you think he's speaking metaphorically, I suspect that if you would ask him, he'd tell you you're misunderstanding his words.
Surprise, surprise.
From THAT point, it appears that your boy may be turning wrong, but I'm out of time tonight. Curious to read more.
Thank you, Dan
The funny thing is, they read that exchange and think Jesse effectively made his case, instead of just pointing and RE-pointing to the holes in his/their human theories.
"You keep pointing to text when the texts themselves point to events. It appears as if you miss the event of Jesus Christ because you trust printed words more than the Holy Trinity."
Indeed.
Dan
They’re all stuck in the 16th century with only sola scripture and anti-papist ideologies. And that’s the best they have to offer in the 21st century.
That’s what comes from trying to live the Christian life void of God the Holy Spirit.
Privatizing dogma of the dead and a brutalizing world view.
If fact, David, on Stan’s post of the 28th, said the silent part out loud.
“ Our faith is built on an event in the past (Jesus), and we look forward to our future rest in Him as He promised.”
They cannot reach out to the living Christ or the power of the Spirit. God is not real for them today. Only the book is real for them.
All they have is a printed chronicle to base a faith on. Pretty sure the Incarnation of God had dismissive words for idolizing pages and ignoring the heart and the Spirit.
Dan, I’ve been in Philly for a couple of days and too the time to go see the Episcopal priest who married my wife and me decades ago. He keeps a tradition of liturgy that is exceptionally “high” rather than broad: which means a lot liturgical features from the old Latin Mass. I went to the noon low mass before die dung that e with him.
All of that is sidebar to my paying attention to the Nicene Creed in the light of radical protestant extremist desperation to keep the disenfranchised poor out of Jesus mouth when he talks about those who hunger and thirst, the widowed and the orphaned, and those living as strangers among us.
And their dismissal of the Holy Spirit as active in the present.
The paragraph:
“I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.”
Spoken through the prophets? Why that material out of all of scripture? Not the Pentateuch? The creation stories? Nope. Not the histories of Saul and David and Solomon? Nope.
The Prophets. The most stringent defenders of the poor and castigators of those who would cheat, dismiss, and abuse the destitute.
The Holy Spirit has spoken - in a special way - through them.
(Not the NT, though. Its status as scripture was still forming.)
Verse 1:
In the shadows, we rise, with the thunder we claim,
Through the fire and flames, we're untamed.
Steel and fury collide, in the night we're alive,
With the power inside, we can't be contained.
Chorus:
We are the storm, the raging sound,
Screaming souls, we're heaven-bound.
Metal hearts, never yield,
Forged in battle, we are the steel.
Verse 2:
Darkness falls, we ascend, with a roar we defend,
Our spirits won't bend, we're the bane of the night.
Lightning strikes, we engage, with a primal rage,
In the war that we wage, we're the bringers of light.
Bridge:
Rise up, warriors, take your stand,
In the arena, we command.
With every chord, we cast our spell,
In the heavy metal heaven or hell.
Outro:
So let the drums of war beat loud,
In this metal symphony, we're proud.
We'll keep on fighting, never kneel,
For we are the eternal heavy metal steel.
Anonymous, are these lyrics supposed to mean something related to the topic?
Sounds like over-the-top toxic masculinity silliness from people with frail male egos.
Dan
Just as a reminder: The topic of the post is someone presuming to tell others that THEY know best what YOU think and are saying... that this is not a good idea. I'm going to assume that our heavy metal friend is just a bot or meaningless pissant throwing up nonsense and delete.
"Sounds like over-the-top toxic masculinity silliness from people with frail male egos."
Perhaps to you over-the-top toxic feminists with frail male egos. To actual men it sounds like something noble. It speaks of defense, protection and facing the worst to provide it.
As to the topic of the post, you assume our presumptions are in error. But they are not. They are based on your own words as well as their publishing over the years. You attempts to clarify muddy instead and we're left with the same conclusions at best. There's no alignment with what you've said with how you posture. That's not on us. That's on you. It's like the adage about having to remember one's lies when telling the truth is easier.
As regards your objections to how we describe your dismissal of so much of Scripture, you don't need to say "I regard Scripture to be unreliable" for that to be nonetheless true of you. You want to say it's our interpretations to which you refer, yet you provide no definitive or unassailable alternative. You simply dismiss what you don't like. Then you tap-dance with some variation of "we just don't know".
I would encourage you to refrain from criticizing us until you can bring a more substantive objection to our "interpretations" than "Nyuh uh".
You erase scripture, Marshal. You don’t interpret it.
Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.’
To actual men it sounds like something noble. It speaks of defense, protection and facing the worst to provide it.
Again, with the actual fragile male ego that has to overcompensate by puffing out one's chest. Men confident in themselves don't need to say, "I'm tuff!"
As to the topic of the post, you assume our presumptions are in error.
And yet, your words and presumptions are literally are factually in error. I know what I mean and meant and it's not what you all are saying. You repeating Nyuh uh (as you reflexively regularly charge others of doing) doesn't mean you've correctly understood my words or correctly paraphrased what I'm saying.
I do NOT deny the reliability of Scripture when I disagree with your personal human interpretations of it.
I do not deny the reliability of Scripture at all. I'm saying, instead, that the notion of a "reliable" text is only as good as the person doing the interpreting. Someone reading Genesis and IN THEIR HEADS thinking, "This must be something like a literal historic story and there must have been a literal Adam and Eve and the earth must have been created around 6,000 years ago because we have a literal historically accurate timeline connecting us to those first two literal humans..." THAT person is forming an opinion about the text that is THEIR literal opinion. I don't share that opinion. I think that opinion is unreliable, but that's not saying the text is unreliable. The text is the text.
You all do the same. When I read the multiple times Jesus speaks to wealth and poverty and the realm of God and interpret it one set of ways and you all disagree with me, you're not saying, "I'm disagreeing with the Bible because I think it's unreliable..." You're saying that you disagree with my understanding. And that is fine, but it's also the exact same thing I'm doing with you all.
You can't just presume your personal human traditions and interpretations are correct and to disagree with your traditions is the same as saying the Bible isn't reliable.
It just does not rationally follow.
But we've said this all before. You continue to make these empty claims with no proof because you literally, factually, demonstrably CAN'T prove your opinions and traditions.
Just move on.
Just curious, though: Does anyone hear recognize our heavy metal boys' source/song/poem? (and yes, it IS a male person speaking, we can know that safely. The fragile male ego is showing through too strongly... unless maybe it's a spambot/AI/non-humanoid.
I've tried quoting various snippets of the tripe and found nothing.
"Men confident in themselves don't need to say, "I'm tuff!""
How would you know?
"And yet, your words and presumptions are literally are factually in error. I know what I mean and meant and it's not what you all are saying. You repeating Nyuh uh (as you reflexively regularly charge others of doing) doesn't mean you've correctly understood my words or correctly paraphrased what I'm saying."
And yet again, you presume to say the fault is with us, rather than in your inability to express yourself in a manner which is clear and concise (especially "concise"). Indeed, you rebuke us for daring to question you at all, while you question our positions without basis other than your dislike of them. But it's not our fault is YOUR words and explanations do nothing to alter our conclusions except to strengthen them. I assert it's because of how wrong you constantly are in the first place, that any attempt to make wrong right fails you so badly and proves our contentions are spot on.
"I do NOT deny the reliability of Scripture when I disagree with your personal human interpretations of it."
Yeah...you keep saying this. But it's just a "Nyuh uh". What's more, that you disagree is a given at this point. Why you disagree is not and without a legitimate and coherent counter argument, the conclusion that you regard Scripture unreliable is unavoidable.
Dan: "I don't agree with your interpretation."
Us: "What's wrong with it?"
Dan: "It's just wrong."
Us: "In what way?"
Dan: "It just is."
That's about as good as it gets with you and it strongly suggests you find...at least with regard the issues being discussed...you find Scripture unreliable.
"THAT person is forming an opinion about the text that is THEIR literal opinion. I don't share that opinion. I think that opinion is unreliable, but that's not saying the text is unreliable."
But again, you give no legitimate reason to dispute the text or the opinion based on it. Worse, you look for and rely upon anything which helps you dispute it. You find science more reliable despite science having no more way of disproving what the text says than anything which proves it. You simply choose to regard science as more reliable. This is how you operate and the only conclusion is your reject Scripture. We get you don't agree with us. But you offer nothing which is in the least bit compelling or persuasive. Just "Nyuh uh" and "we just don't know".
"You all do the same. When I read the multiple times Jesus speaks to wealth and poverty and the realm of God and interpret it one set of ways and you all disagree with me, you're not saying, "I'm disagreeing with the Bible because I think it's unreliable..." You're saying that you disagree with my understanding. And that is fine, but it's also the exact same thing I'm doing with you all."
But it's NOT the same. We bring substance. Beginning with Scripture itself and then proceeding to scholarly commentaries. In this case, you can't separate mentions of wealth and poverty with the actual message being conveyed by those mentions. Every mention in your mind is anti-rich and pro-poor. That's not how it works, and you bring nothing to prove otherwise but your own socialist insistence that it is.
"You can't just presume your personal human traditions and interpretations are correct and to disagree with your traditions is the same as saying the Bible isn't reliable."
Yet if that was actually the case, you might have a point. But we aren't "just presuming" anything, though if it were only that, we'd at least have a basis, since presumption requires a basis. But when you reject our "personal human traditions and interpretations", that's all you bring...rejection and without basis in fact.
And how false it is! When you use this expression "personal human traditions" as if we made up our own beliefs which have no true connection to Scripture, you lie. Scripture provokes our beliefs and traditions, and specific passages and verse alone support those beliefs. They don't support most of yours and certainly not your objections to ours.
"You continue to make these empty claims with no proof because you literally, factually, demonstrably CAN'T prove your opinions and traditions."
We most always do ("always", actually, but I'm trying to be gracious), while you don't even try.
Feodor... I don't know why your comments are showing up. Here's what you posted:
FEODOR, to Marshal:
Jesus in Matthew, Marshall. When you have to lie about hunger and thirst and refugees because you can’t face Jesus… then you know who you are.
Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.’
Marshal, from a misogynistic post that is now deleted for being misogynistic, said:
Truly good men are dangerous men.
[rolls eyes.]
Truly good men are those who've grown up.
Roll your crossed eyes all you like, Dan. Truly good men don't delete posts by lying the deleted was misogynistic. Truly good men leave the comments posted and explain what's misogynistic about them. "Grown ups" don't act like you at all. Getting back to your mindless condescension, I'm going to assume you conflate "dangerous" with evil somehow. If so, then you're not at all good, grown up or intelligent. We know you're not honest. What's left for you?
Post a Comment