In talking with some conservative evangelicals over the years, I've been told that Jesus' "good news for the poor" is what sound to be a rather dark and dismal bit of good news.
I wonder what people like these folk think Jesus' Good News is (and, of course, I know the general answer...)... but in what possible sense is it good news, especially "for the poor" as Jesus framed it?
I further wonder that, even if they wouldn't put it this way, is this not a technically correct summation of your hunches about "good news..."?:
Ancient marginalized person (AMP): Wow! I just heard Jesus speaking about the "Good News FOR THE POOR and OPPRESSED," Specifically for "the poor and oppressed..." he said! I am a poor and marginalized dirt farmer whose poor daughter ended up working as a harlot after her husband abandoned her. Jesus' way sounds like it's something different than the legalism of the Pharisees, which is just more oppression especially for marginalized folk like me and my family... this sounds like an open invitation to ALL to be part of God's realm AND that it makes a real difference in our life, here and now! Glory be!
Modern Conservative Evangelicals (MCE): Now, hold on a second there, son. You're confusing Jesus' good news with socialism or something. You've got it all wrong.
AMP: What? Well, what IS the good news for the poor and marginalized that Jesus talked of?
MCE: Well, first of all, it's NOT a good news specifically for the poor, that's your first mistake.
AMP: But, but Jesus said...
MCE: Look, clearly you've been reading Marx, not Jesus. The good news is this: That ALL of us humans are horrible, awful, monstrous people. EVEN OUR BABIES are sinful. In fact, all of us, even our babies, are SO awful and sinful, that we DESERVE to die.
AMP: Even our babies...?
MCE: ...and NOT just to die, but to die and yet your spirit will be kept alive and tortured in fire for all of eternity.
AMP: That's the good news??
MCE: No, of course not. The good news is that God is offering us an alternative. We can be saved eventually and go to heaven and live in bliss forever.
AMP: Starting now? Because I'm hungry and oppressed here, now...
MCE: No, Jesus didn't really care all that much specifically about the poor and marginalized. He just didn't have a lot to say about the condition of the poor and marginalized...
AMP: It sounded to me like he did... that's why all of us poor folk were so energized by his teachings...
MCE: Nope. Jesus loves ALL of us sinners and invited SOME of us are invited to that bliss of heaven. Of course, the rest of us, including most poor people AND most rich people, will be tortured for eternity for being awful, terrible people that God didn't choose.
AMP: God's only choosing SOME of us? But what if we WANT to be saved but weren't chosen?
MCE: IF you weren't chosen, that means you didn't really want to be saved in the first place. And so, for such a person, it's eternal torture for being such a horrible human being.
AMP: Eternal torture??! What did I do that was SO awful that it deserves eternal torture?
MCE: Be born a fallen, disgusting, sin-riddled human being.
AMP: But... I didn't ask to be born or to be born that way. I just was born, without my consent.
MCE: Nonetheless, you have chosen to reject God's offer (if you're not in the Elect chosen by God group) and thus, will be tortured for an eternity.
AMP: And THAT is the "good news for the poor and oppressed" that Jesus talked about? No changes now, continued suffering and oppression now, but one day, there's a one in a hundred chance I might be one of the elect that gets saved?
MCE: One in a hundred actually sounds pretty high, to me. "WIDE is the way that leads to destruction," you know?
AMP: (muttering...), but... but how is that good news for the poor and oppressed?
MCE: (singing) Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like ME (but not him, poor chump!)
+++++++
I'd ask any conservative readers if that a technically close summary of your hunches about salvation? Even if you wouldn't put it that way? If it's not correct, what isn't correct? How is YOUR version of "good news for the poor" in any way actually good news for the poor? Or was Jesus wrong to put it that way?
50 comments:
I'm just asking a question here. Are you saying that the good news that Jesus proclaimed to the poor and marginalized is actually socialism? I don't think that's what you meant; I'm just asking for clarification because what you wrote could be taken that way.
No. I did not say or suggest that, but thanks for asking. I'm curious, where do you see that suggestion?
Stan, I think Dan is saying that the gospel is really revolutionary anti-15th century Burgundian feudalism.
You had your AMP saying it's good news and your MCE warning, "You're confusing Jesus' good news with socialism." Since your AMP sounded surprised ("What?"), I thought it looked like you disagreed with the MCE and it was socialism. Thanks for clarifying.
Is this an unfair/inaccurate summation of your salvation beliefs?
Of course not.
It's accurate, then?
I’ll let Stan answer for himself, but I’d say it a perversion that bears no relationship to anything I’ve ever heard. But I know it makes you happy to make up the other side’s position and argue against your version, do go ahead. Your self esteem is what’s important.
Why doesn’t Craig correct the portrait? Has he nothing to offer that is a corrective? Or no pride? Surely it’s easy to correct a perversion?
Craig never, ever makes an argument for himself. He doesn’t trust his capacity to put together an extended, cohesive argument.
But he pulls all kind of tricks to pick at what Dan is brave enough to offer.
By all means, Craig, correct me (for you, only, of course).
1. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved. Do you not believe that?
2. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is deserving of an eternity of torture for being depraved and utterly sinful. Do you not believe that?
3. Many conservative evangelicals believe that even babies and children are so sinful that they, too, deserve to be tortured for eternity. Do you not believe that?
4. You have said that you don't think Jesus expressed much concern especially for poor people (I don't have the quote handy, but could find it if you don't recall). Do you not believe what you said? Or did you misspeak earlier?
5. Many conservative evangelicals believe that God has an "elect few" - those whom God has specifically CHOSEN to be saved - who will be saved. So, all those others, poor and rich alike - will be condemned to an eternity of torture. Do you not believe this?
6. In what sense was Jesus' Gospel "good news for the poor and marginalized..."? Because quite frankly, I have a hard time picking out much of modern conservative evangelicalism that sounds like good news for the poor and marginalized.
7. Or do you think it WASN'T specifically good news for the poor and marginalized, as Jesus said? If so, why did Jesus put it that way? (And Isaiah before him?)
I can only go on how I understand what you all have said (and what I grew up hearing for the first ~30 years of my life), but if this doesn't fit your specific views, please help me understand and answer some specific questions so I can learn and know.
Saying "nuh uh" doesn't really tell me anything. Fair enough?
You know, through all of this, I'm still waiting to hear what DAN thinks the Good News is, and from where precisely (chapter & verse) he finds his answer. Just sayin.
While you wait, Marshal:
My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked with favor on the LOWLINESS of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the PROUD in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the POWERFUL from their thrones,
and lifted up the LOWLY;
he has filled the HUNGRY with good things,
and sent the RICH away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”
Of course, I have and can and shall offer what I mean by Jesus' good news for the poor (hint: it will actually sound like, you know, actual good news...), but does my summary do your views justice, Marshal?
I'm sorry, Dan. I misunderstood your question to me. Yes, it is an unfair/inaccurate summation of my understanding of the Gospel. I missed the "in" in both terms and thought you were asking the reverse. My mistake. I disagree with just about every point you made. But you did leave me wondering just what you think the Gospel is. It looks like it excludes those who are not poor or marginalized. It looks like it excludes any sort of spiritual sense -- forgiveness of sins, making right before God, even heaven, I guess. But I seriously can't put my finger on it, so I don't know your position on what the Gospel is. I can say with certainty you don't know what most "MCE's" think it is. At least none of the modern conservative evangelicals I know.
So, Stan, in other words, “you mischaracterized me but I’m not going to tell you what I believe. But! why don’t you tell me what you believe.”
This, after Dan has used 10,000 words in two posts complete with color. But Stan pots out of characterizing himself. As Marshal would say, ZERO character.
While you’re waiting for Dan, Stan, why don’t you, too, reread the Magnificat as if it WERE scripture.
Stan, I would direct you to the list of questions I asked Craig. Please, help me understand.
" but does my summary do your views justice, Marshal?"
To what are you referring exactly? The post itself, or some comment thereafter? If the latter, please provide date and time of the comment.
Where I disagree with your assessment:
"Not specifically for the poor"
Would you assert that it is ... that those who are not poor or marginalized are not included in the good news?
I don't believe that social justice is Marxism.
I don't believe the good news is that people are going to hell.
I don't believe we are "saved eventually."
I don't believe salvation is "go to heaven and live in bliss forever."
I don't believe that Jesus didn't really care that much about the poor and marginalized.
I don't believe He invited some of us to heaven. The invitation is general, not specific.
I don't believe there will be some "who want to be saved but weren't chosen."
I don't believe if you weren't chosen it's because you didn't really want to be saved.
I don't believe anyone goes to hell for being born, fallen or otherwise.
I don't believe that salvation is "no changes now."
I also don't believe that the good news is health and comfort now, let alone especially for the poor and marginalized. I do wonder what the good news is for you, given that the poor and marginalized don't seem to be benefiting from it today.
Oh, and I don't believe you've defined "poor and marginalized" in a way specific enough to allow discussion with any confidence that we are speaking about the same thing.
I haven't answered your list of demands because I'm responding to your post and because your list of demands doesn't match your MCE caricature.
We’re both on very familiar terms, aren’t we Dan, with this dynamic of agrarian, sectarian radical Protestantism: defining faith by what is not believed.
I don’t believe that Catholics, Jews, Muslims are going to heaven.
No, wait, Catholics maybe, but not Jews and Muslims.
No, wait, Catholics and Jews, but not Muslims.
I don’t believe in the Augsburg confession.
I don’t believe Jesus is present at communion.
I don’t believe in wine for communion.
I don’t believe in musical instruments in church.
I don’t believe in mixed dancing.
I don’t believe in card playing.
I don’t believe women should wear pants.
I don’t believe women should work.
I don’t believe married women should teach (followed by, No, wait, I don’t believe single women should teach; followed by, No, wait, I don’t believe married women should teach.)
I don’t believe in women getting higher education.
I don’t believe that non-whites should worship with whites.
I don’t believe in integration.
I don’t believe in marrying outside one’s race.
I don’t believe in rich Republicans.
No, wait, I don’t believe in liberal Democrats.
I don’t believe a President should be act immorally.
No, wait...
As for me, the Magnificat will do quite nicely as a statement of faith. Mary was the first one to believe in Jesus Christ.
And as the theotokos, she is certainly worthy of hearing our prayers.
Yes, Feodor.
Thanks for your response, Stan. Let me take your questions one at a time.
Where I disagree with your assessment:
"Not specifically for the poor"
Would you assert that it is ... that those who are not poor or marginalized are not included in the good news?
No. I didn't say that and I don't think that. Thanks for asking for clarification purpose. With the line you quoted, I'm suggesting that many evangelicos do not believe that Jesus preached his gospel specifically and literally to the poor. I'm saying that that is what the text says and I do believe it, given the rest of Jesus words. That Jesus preached the gospel specifically including and for the poor and marginalized is not to say that others are not welcome.
So, Jesus said he came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. I accept that and believe it.
Do you disagree with that assessment, with that phrasing that Jesus used?
Put another way, to note that Jesus said he came to preach the gospel specifically to the poor is not the same as him saying he came to preach the gospel exclusively to the poor. Does that help make it more palatable?
The conservative in my example was disagreeing with that phrasing. It appears that you disagree with that phrasing, as well. So am I right in that case?
The conservative in your example is likely a figment of your own imagination. It certainly might as well be, given that it doesn't match any of the people who have been taking issue with your "theology".
I was hoping to see clarification for the you question to me to which I responded on September 24, 2019 at 8:08 AM.
I would also hope that you would discontinue use of the word "marginalized" if you wish to talk about what Jesus actually said according to the text. Christ doesn't use the word according to any verse you've referenced thus far. It seems it would serve you better to stick with your own premise, that you're looking at Christ's words as written in the text. Why then continue to use this word that isn't ever mentioned? You did it with "grace" and "justice" and now this. It makes it difficult to address your premise if you don't even stick to it.
I'm glad to do it, Marshal. But I'm waiting for at least one of you fellows to tell me what I'm getting wrong. Here it is point-by-point...
Hint : it's the same points I raised in my original post, but this one is put in more evengelical friendly language. What am I getting wrong in your beliefs? Please answer the questions below...
1. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved. Do you not believe that?
2. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is deserving of an eternity of torture for being depraved and utterly sinful. Do you not believe that?
3. Many conservative evangelicals believe that even babies and children are so sinful that they, too, deserve to be tortured for eternity. Do you not believe that?
4. You (Craig) have said that you don't think Jesus expressed much concern especially for poor people (I don't have the quote handy, but could find it if you don't recall). Do you not believe what you said? Or did you misspeak earlier?
5. Many conservative evangelicals believe that God has an "elect few" - those whom God has specifically CHOSEN to be saved - who will be saved. So, all those others, poor and rich alike - will be condemned to an eternity of torture. Do you not believe this?
6. In what sense was Jesus' Gospel "good news for the poor and marginalized..."? Because quite frankly, I have a hard time picking out much of modern conservative evangelicalism that sounds like good news for the poor and marginalized.
7. Or do you think it WASN'T specifically good news for the poor and marginalized, as Jesus said? If so, why did Jesus put it that way? (And Isaiah before him?)
Marshall, regarding your comments about marginalized. Jesus said he came to preach good news to the poor, the ill, those who were in prison... the day of God's good favor, or the day of Jubilee, which was a day of economic redistribution. That's what I mean by the marginalized. The poor, the sick, the imprisoned, women, Sinners, the unclean. These were all marginalized in that Society and stood indirect contrast to the clean, holy hand welcome, according to the Pharisees.
In what possible since were these not marginalized?
Marshal: "Why then continue to use this word that isn't ever mentioned? You did it with "grace" and "justice"
Why does Marshal continue to lie?
I've already schooled him that Jesus uses the word, grace (chari). And now, here's justice (dikaios - limited to the passages Dan selected):
Luke 5 "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 Jesus answered, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the just but sinners to repentance.”
Luke 14: "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. 14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
Luke 18: "And will not God grant justice to his chosen ones who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long in helping them? I tell you, he will quickly grant justice to them. And yet, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?” He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were just and regarded others with contempt..."
RE your discussion with Craig: What is fulfilled that day in the synagogue as Jesus reads from Isaiah 61 is the promise of salvation history. God sent the prophets to turn Judah and Israels’s leaders toward justice and faithfulness. (“I love justice” Isaiah 61.) The leaders had a responsibility to the marginalized but they pursued their desires for riches and excessive sensuality instead.
Now, one greater than the prophets has come. What is fulfilled - here at the beginning of his ministry in the narrative of Luke - is his authority. The spirit of the Lord IS upon him. Jesus IS anointed. He IS sent. He IS the one who can proclaim god’s grace.
How do we know that he IS the one? Jesus asks us to witness the feeding of the hungry, the healing of disease, the casting out of demons. Taking care of the poor, the wounded, the suffering is the sign and work of the Messiah. And he promises destruction to the rich and haughty and powerful.
This is clearly the through line of the gospel narrative: how do we know he’s legit with salvation? Because he pays central attention to those in need. So we should follow.
You need to turn around, then, Craig. And walk the other way.
To Craig, who has such anxiety that he openly responds to me while blocking me:
“As you are aware, your cowardice, inferiority anxiety, and disassembling from your own professed standards leave me uncaring for what you do.
Unless you actually change.
You can generally find my corrections to your shallow grasp of things at Dan’s. He and I may well differ in emphases in many things but we’re still not a lying, denying, dodging putz like you. We both actually articulate something, rather than block, whinge, and hide.”
We’ve been leading these bible worshippers back to scripture, Dan, and there are three things they cannot stand:
1. We know scripture better than they do.
2. What scripture is telling them.
3. Seeing the rote, hand-me-down blinders they wear when they think of the Bible.
Craig is offended by my response to him. This guy who blocks someone he still comments to, thus giving himself carte blanche to characterize all things without allowing response, is offended that he doesn’t get polite respect in response.
Craig performs his own personal self-deceiving corrupt Pharisaical fake righteousness.
A member of the marginalized:
"A group of sixth-grade boys at the private Christian school where second lady Karen Pence is a teacher have been accused of holding down a classmate and forcibly cutting off her dreadlocks because they were "nappy" and "ugly."
The student, 12-year-old Amari Allen, attends Immanuel Christian School in Fairfax County, Virginia, just outside of Washington, D.C. She was allegedly attacked at the school's Springfield campus Monday, September 23, during recess by three white male students. Allen told CBS affiliate WUSA9 that one student covered her mouth with his hands while another held her arms behind her back and another cut her dreadlocks with scissors while taunting her.
"They kept laughing and calling me names," Allen said. "They called me 'ugly,' said, 'I shouldn't have been born.' They called me 'an attention-seeker.'"
Dan,
I KNOW what YOU mean by "marginalized". My point is that you were referring to Christ's actual words as presented in whatever version of the Bible you are using for the purpose...those "red letter" sayings...none of which uses the word "marginalized" at any time. Thus, to say that Jesus was bringing the Good News to the poor and "marginalized" is not accurate, except by way of YOUR categorizing the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, women, Sinners, the unclean as "marginalized" people. That's fine, but it isn't a word that Christ uses. Thus, you can't use it either in a post about what Scripture says is Christ's own words, and using those words to make your point about economics or whatever.
What's more, your understanding is a reflection of what the English translation implies. NOT what the original language does. This somewhat destroys your entire long-winded post about Christ's words, if it doesn't make any reference to what the text's original language is saying. By this I refer to the debate over what Christ means when He says He's bringing "good news to the 'poor'". Is He referring to the materially poor, or the spiritually poor? I'm saying the latter, while you insist it has to be the former. But what is the meaning of the original Greek (the language of the Gospels)? It suggests the latter. I can expound on that later. As to the comment from September 24, 2019 at 4:48 PM, I respond as follows:
"What am I getting wrong in your beliefs? Please answer the questions below..."
I am happy to once again respond directly and without equivocation or ambiguity as is my practice. However, I must take issue with how you frame your questions. You refer to "Many conservative evangelicals". What does this mean? 51%? 99%? Or is it just another suggestion about that which you have no solid basis to say? Said another way, I wouldn't argue that NO conservative evangelicals believe as you believe they do. I just wonder if "many" is an appropriate generalization. I would not wager on it. In any case, I proceed in my next comment...
"1. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is utterly sinful and depraved. Do you not believe that?"
Scripture clearly teaches that we are all stained by Adam's sin. There is nothing in this world that is not since Christ ascended. I recently read a piece from R.C. Sproul (I believe) regarding the difference between "utterly" and "totally" depraved. YOU use "utterly" in relation to sinful. I don't want to get into a debate about semantics with regard to it, but his position is that the former refers to something that is beyond changing, while the latter simply speaks to a more general condition. Whatever. My position is in alignment with Scripture that states we are all of a sin nature and that nature is what separates us from God.
"2. Many conservative evangelicals believe that all of humanity is deserving of an eternity of torture for being depraved and utterly sinful. Do you not believe that?"
This, too, is consistent with Scripture as far as we are all deserving of death as a result of our sin nature. You seem to like to use extreme terms when doing so serves to separate you from what to you seems to be an extremely harsh judgement of God...as if He just couldn't be so strict in His sense of justice. Thus, I believe that we are all deserving of death...whatever that means to God...as a result of our sin nature and there's nothing we can do about it all by ourselves.
"3. Many conservative evangelicals believe that even babies and children are so sinful that they, too, deserve to be tortured for eternity. Do you not believe that?"
The problem here...aside from your intentional hyperbolic representation of the belief...is the difference between what is deserved (and why) versus what God actually has planned for those who have not reached that point in life where they are responsible for themselves. There is no one who is not stained by Adam's sin. Thus, it is not that babies and children are "so sinful"...as if they are willful in their sinfulness...but simply that they are no less deserving of death. Whether or not God has an actual intention to make them suffer eternally is an entirely different subject. "Deserving" and "sentenced to that which one deserves" are two different things.
continuing with next comment...please let me finish before responding...
"4. You (Craig) have said that you don't think Jesus expressed much concern especially for poor people (I don't have the quote handy, but could find it if you don't recall). Do you not believe what you said? Or did you misspeak earlier?"
Clearly this question is in response to something Craig said. I don't think it's an accurate representation of Craig's position, and it certainly isn't of mine. My problem with your whole theology is that you ignore the original language in favor of the English translations of it, and from that as your foundation, you build your socialist notions of what Christ teaches. Again, I believe that many of His words regarding "the poor" are more properly understood as "poor in spirit". Christ several times explains that He is not about the corporeal world, but the spiritual...His kingdom not being of this world, for example. Other times, He references the materially poor when expressing how others should be treating such people, thereby showing concern not for the materially poor, but for the salvation potential of those who ignore them. As such, His concern was for sinners, which is a spiritual thing...not the poor specifically.
"5. Many conservative evangelicals believe that God has an "elect few" - those whom God has specifically CHOSEN to be saved - who will be saved. So, all those others, poor and rich alike - will be condemned to an eternity of torture. Do you not believe this?"
I don't know how this relates to your "economic" perspective. It is a difficult concept around which to wrap one's head. "Chosen" isn't the proper term to use with regard to the "elect" as far as my understanding takes me. I believe it means that God knew before we were born which of us will believe. But it's a subject worthy of its own post.
"6. In what sense was Jesus' Gospel "good news for the poor and marginalized..."? Because quite frankly, I have a hard time picking out much of modern conservative evangelicalism that sounds like good news for the poor and marginalized."
And here is where your position makes its own confusion. First, there's that problematic word "marginalized" which Christ Himself never uses. Who are such people? Clearly, in your world, they are certain people that Christ Himself doesn't separate or categorize. When you focus on "poor" as a material thing rather than a spiritual thing, it's easy to see why you're having that hard time. But when the spiritual is acknowledged, then the Good News makes sense, as it is truly a message of salvation... of God's Heavenly Kingdom being accessible to all. A rich person can certainly be poor in spirit, and a materially poor person can be evil personified. So "marginalized" by whom? From the spiritual perspective, it is absolutely any sinner regardless of wealth. You simply have to stop including that word "marginalized" as if Christ ever used it...or even considered using it...when speaking of bringing the Good News to the "poor".
Thus, the conservative evangelical focuses on the spiritual poverty, not material. The Good News was brought to the spiritually impoverished, not simply the materially.
one more to go...
"7. Or do you think it WASN'T specifically good news for the poor and marginalized, as Jesus said? If so, why did Jesus put it that way? (And Isaiah before him?)"
Neither did. They never mentioned "the marginalized", because what you mean by that wasn't descriptive of what was intended by the Isaiah verse or Christ's repetition of it. The Gospels were originally written in an ancient form of Greek. There were two words translated into English as "poor". That which was used here was not a reference to the materially poor. What follows is one person's explanation for the distinction which the English translations do not express. I could have chosen any from a large number of such commentaries, and in doing so demonstrated that at least half of the verses to which your "the Bible and economics" type posts are equally flawed in that manner of misinterpretation:
https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PERSONAL/k/202/The-Beatitudes-Part-Two-Poor-Spirit.htm
None of this is to say that Jesus did not have concern for the materially downtrodden. But as I suggested several times, it was usually in relation to how they were treated by those who were the true recipients of Christ's concern...the "oppressors" of the poor, or those who would not give them the time of day. Indeed, even a poor man has some obligation to render aid to another poor person and as such can be equally guilty of ignoring the poor.
So we must throw out the word "marginalized", since Christ didn't use it or anything like it, and focus on the true meaning of His words which were of a more spiritual meaning.
And again, as to "marginalized", by your words one would think that only the poor can be. This is certainly untrue. A poor person can think himself as worthy as did the Pharisee in the temple, while regarding that Pharisee as his lesser morally, thereby marginalizing the Pharisee. This is another way of demonstrating that "the poor" are the spiritually poor and not the materially, and that the Good News was brought for the benefit of the spiritually poor, not just the materially or even specifically the materially.
“He says He's bringing "good news to the 'poor'". Is He referring to the materially poor, or the spiritually poor? I'm saying the latter, while you insist it has to be the former. But what is the meaning of the original Greek (the language of the Gospels)? It suggests the latter. I can expound on that later.”
There’s one born every minute.
πτωχός (poor)
1. reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms
2. destitute of wealth, influence, position, honour
lowly, afflicted, destitute of the Christian virtues and eternal riches
helpless, powerless to accomplish an end
poor, needy
3. lacking in anything
עֲנָוִ֗ים (poor)
1 poor, needy
2 poor and weak. oppressed by rich and powerful
3 poor, weak and afflicted Israel
Feo,
If Dan was arguing for a Jesus that could heal the sick and cast out demons (the existence of which he likely denies), it would probably minimize our differences.
Yet Dan isn’t advocating for the Jesus you describe, is he?
Craig, how hypocritical it is to address me - and even pose a question seeking an answer here - but block me at your blog. But, to show you that even here your pretensions are only that:
I wasn’t aware Dan was claiming that Jesus was casting demons out of and healing Pharisees toward whom, the righteous throughout the land, he has such a caring attitude. If you could perhaps give evidence that Dan finds the rich to be cured of leprosy or fed or made to walk again, I’d have to consider an argument you cannot make.
Craig, to your question / point, I see no evidence that human beings get possessed by demons. I do see mental illness that has been considered to be dimming possession in years past. As to what Jesus did, I think he worked to make people better, more whole. Those were sick and considered demon-possessed were marginalized, in spite of what Marshal appears to be trying to argue.
Marshal, if I'm reading you right... and I'm reading for my phone so it's a little harder to tell... it seems that you're saying that yes, I did sum up your arguments correctly. Is that correct?
That’s the point. He’s not, yet you are.
Your commenting privileges are 100% in your hands. All you need to do is post your plan with definitions of terms and details of your proposals in its entirety.
But I suspect you won’t because you revel in your faux victim status, and in ignoring your cheerleading when Dan does what you whine about.
Craig, Aug 10 or 12 here at Dan’s. In three consecutive comments.
I don’t like you plans, either. Or, rather, likely wouldn’t... if you were to ever post one. But then the job is to demonstrate its faults. Erasure and denials, dodges and lies is a strategy of inferiority-fueled avoidance.
The 11th, as a matter of fact.
"Marshal, if I'm reading you right... and I'm reading for my phone so it's a little harder to tell... it seems that you're saying that yes, I did sum up your arguments correctly. Is that correct?"
Absent the intentionally inflammatory language and acknowledging the caveats present in my responses, yes...generally speaking. At least for the first five questions. #6 & #7 weren't really representations of a position as were the first five.
September 28
Craig: “Your commenting privileges are 100% in your hands. All you need to do is post your plan with definitions of terms and details of your proposals in its entirety. But I suspect you won’t because you revel in your faux victim status...”
Feodor: “Craig, Aug 10 or 12 here at Dan’s. In three consecutive comments.”
Craig: (silence)
Zero character. Zero honesty. You falsely use the charge of racism for purely personal gain: which is covering your shame by hiding superior moralists.
When their lies are exposed, Dan, they don’t come back until you put up a new post.
Post a Comment