Because I keep hearing people sounding
like they are surprised at the notion of a politically
confrontational Jesus who repeatedly sided with the poor and
marginalized and for whom issues of poverty and justice for the
oppressed was a central theme, I'm reviewing Jesus' timeline in the
Gospels, primarily using Luke as my reference (but citing other
parallel verses at times). I'm doing this because I hear, at times, people say things like, "Sure, Jesus here and there mentioned looking out 'for the least of these...' but it wasn't a central theme..." I'm saying yes, it was a central, pivotal theme. That, indeed, if you miss that central Jesusian way of looking at "salvation" in terms of wealth, poverty, oppression and the marginalized, you are likely to miss the point of the Jesus story.
As we go through this quickly, keep in mind to look for...
- Who the message is for (the poor and marginalized, over and over)?
- Who is opposed to him (the religious, the rich and the powerful)?
- What conflicts occur and over what topics – repeatedly, over violating religious rules and traditions, especially in relation to “purity codes” (who was clean and who was unclean – hint: the poor, sick and marginalized were generally the unclean – and who was “in” and who was “out...”)
- Watch for references to the poor, sick, widow, women, immigrant/stranger, marginalized, as well as for references to the rich and powerful, keeping in mind who was rich and powerful and who wasn't.
- Watch for references to what most modern evangelicals call the Christian message: That Jesus came to preach a “good news” of Jesus “paying” for our “sins,” to “purchase” our salvation from an angry God who can't bear to be in the presence of sinners... this “purchase” was to be made with a literal “blood payment” which Jesus paid for by dying on the cross “for our sins...” (hint: THAT version of the “good news of Jesus” - called Penal Atonement Theory by evangelicals – is almost entirely absent from the four gospel narratives).
- Watch for references to the Realm of God (kingdom of God and variations).
- Watch for references to “preaching the good news...” What is he speaking of when Jesus uses that phrase?
- Watch for references to Jesus opposing religious traditions/rules/”the Purity Code” which said that some people (often the poor, sick, women and the marginalized) were “unclean” and thus, set apart in negative ways.
Here we go...
Luke 1, in which John the Baptist's birth is foretold and religious tradition was broken (in John not being named after his father);
Luke 1, in which John the Baptist's birth is foretold and religious tradition was broken (in John not being named after his father);
In which Elizabeth (John's mother) is
thankful that her shame (in being barren) and second class citizen
nature is changing;
In which Jesus' mother, Mary, sings a
song thanking God for choosing an insignificant and marginalized no
one to be the vessel for Jesus, and in which she sang about God
lifting up the poor and marginalized and bringing down the rich and
powerful;
In which John is born and his father
also sings a song praising God for shining the sun on the
marginalized ones, about the forgiveness of sins because of God's
mercy/grace and being a light on the path to peace;
Luke 2, in which the powerful
ruling elite are threatened by the prophecies of a King Child and
promptly begins oppressing/killing the children (actually spoken of
in Matthew 2, but on the same timeline)(and you can be sure that the
baby boys being killed were NOT from the families of the wealthy and
privileged, but the poor and marginalized);
In which Jesus and his family become
refugees fleeing violence (in Matthew 2);
In which Jesus, the son of God, is
specifically born into a poor family (where we see they are poor by
the poverty offering they give in the temple of two doves);
In which the old prophet, Simeon, says
that this child, Jesus, would cause the “falling and rising of
many in Israel..." (echoing Mary's song);
In which Jesus began breaking with
religious traditions by daring to ask questions (as a child) of the
adult religious teachers;
Luke 3, in which John the
Baptist begins preaching in the desert a message of forgiveness and
repentance, assuring the people that merely being a “good Jew”
was not what would save them, challenging religious traditions;
In which John is asked “what should
we do to repent?!” and tells the crowd, to help the poor and
oppressed;
In which John gives hell to the
governor for fooling around with his brother's wife and is
consequently locked up in prison by the powers that be (noting that this is one of the few times - the ONLY time? - that Jesus reacts harshly to "sexual sin," and we can see it is because it is happening with someone in power...);
In which we are given a geneology of
Jesus (and where, in Matthew 1, we see a geneology which includes
women, which was not typically done);
Luke 4, in which Jesus goes into
the wilderness to pray and is “tested” by Satan's questions and
rebukes the devil for tempting him to choose the way of traditional
political power;
In which Jesus begins his ministry by explaining WHY he had come, saying, “I have come to proclaim Good News to the poor, freedom
for prisoners, the sick, healed, the oppressed set free and the Day
of Jubilee/God's good favor!” (Day of Jubilee being a reference to the OT rule about economic restoration of wealth to the poor)
In which (in Matthew's parallel
timeline), Jesus preaches about repenting, for the Realm of God was near;
In which Jesus is promptly rejected by
the religious in his hometown (no doubt, stirred up by the religious
leaders);
In which Jesus begins healing the sick
and dealing with the “unclean...,” including helping people on
the Sabbath, which was, according to the religious leaders, a
violation of the law;
In which Jesus continues the practice
of seeking out wilderness/solitary places for times of
self- care/prayer;
In which Jesus says he was proclaiming
“Good News of the Realm of God, because that was why he was
sent..." (and keeping in mind that Jesus began his ministry saying
he'd come to preach Good news to the poor and marginalized;)
Luke 5, in which Jesus begins
calling his disciples/organizing a community to be part of and who
could learn from him in order to carry on the practices he taught...
Keeping in mind, it was a deliberate organizing process for Jesus;
In which Jesus and his new buddies
become fishing buddies;
In which Jesus heals an “unclean”
leper, violating Purity Code rules;
In which Jesus dares to say to a
paralyzed man “Your sins are forgiven” and the
Pharisees/teachers of the law/religious leaders are further outraged
by Jesus' audacity;
In which Jesus firmly sets up his
tradition of hanging out with “the sinners” and becoming known
as “a friend of the sinners...” (which the religious leader types
did not count as a good thing)
In which Jesus begins using parable
stories to teach lessons (and the analogies therein were often not
understood!);
Luke 6, in which Jesus broke the
religious rules against working on the Sabbath (again!) by taking
grain from the fields he and his disciples passed through to satisfy
their hunger. Note: It was, in theory, not a crime of stealing
because in the OT, there were rules that farmers had to allow the
poor, foreigners and marginalized to harvest for free from the edges
of their fields... sort of an old fashioned welfare approach... so
taking the grain that wasn't theirs was not a crime, but harvesting
on the Sabbath was;
In which Jesus pointed out (this is
HUGE, I think) to the religious rule followers that the point of
the rules was NOT blindly following rules... the rules were made to
help, not harm. “The Sabbath rule was made for humans, NOT
humans for following the sabbath rule...” is how Mark puts it in
his Gospel;
In which, immediately after the grain
gleaning on the Sabbath, Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath and AGAIN,
the religious leaders are outraged and begin to plot about what to do
about Jesus;
In which Jesus again retreats to the
wilderness/mountains to pray (and we are introduced to Judas,
identified even here as the “traitor...”
In which the Sermon on the Mount/Plain
begins;
In which Jesus says Blessed are you
who are poor for yours is the Realm of God (there it is)... blessed
are you who are hungry, for you will be satisfied... WOE to you who
are rich now.... WOE to you who are fattened and filled, for you
will go hungry...
In which Jesus teaches about loving
our enemies... but does so in a way that describes (at least
according to many scholars) ideas of opposing your enemy NOT meekly
and accepting of injustices, but in non-violent direct action sorts
of ways... ways that usurp the power and threat of the rich and
powerful (read Walter Wink and the Sermon on the Mount for more);
In which Jesus speaks of not merely
calling religiously out “Oh Lord, Lord...” but to put into
practice your religious works (which he says repeatedly in the
Gospels means helping the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the
foreigner...)
Luke 7, in which Jesus meets a
rich and powerful centurion and is impressed with his faith (Jesus
repeatedly meets with the rich and powerful, in spite of his many
criticisms of them... some have opined that this might be an example
of an Insider's Critique... that Jesus was able to criticize the
Pharisees because he was well familiar with them and their
practices... maybe even coming from a family of Pharisees..??) (thus
showing that Jesus was not at all blindly opposed to interacting with
the rich and powerful ones he regularly strongly chastised/rebuked);
In which Jesus heals a dead man after
seeing his poor widowed mother crying over him (the son's death
would have insured her poverty/outcast nature, almost certainly, in
that culture);
In which John the Baptist (still in
prison) sends some followers to ask if Jesus was “really the
One...” and Jesus responded by telling John, “I'm healing the
sick and marginalized and preaching good news to the poor...” by
way of evidence that he was of God;
In which Jesus praises John to the
crowd and “the people” in general are favorably impressed, but
the religious leaders were jealous/angry;
In which Jesus identifies himself as
one who hangs out with the poor, sinful, unclean and marginalized;
In which Jesus is promptly approached
by a “harlot” - a very “unclean” woman – who washes his
feet with her hair... this would be quite a scandal and the Pharisee
at whose house Jesus was visiting questioned Jesus for letting this
happen;
In which Jesus points out how the poor
unclean “whore” had welcomed him in a way that the Pharisee had
failed to do. Jesus then tells this woman her sins are forgiven!
Again, scandal for the religious leaders;
Luke 8, in which Jesus tells
more parables and heals more people, including the “unclean,”
again, breaking religious rules, again, helping the poor;
Luke 9, in which Jesus'
disciples go out to “preach the good news” about the realm of God
and heal the sick;
In which his disciples travel simply
and lightly, relying upon the kindness of strangers for putting them
up and feeding them... the Realm of God??;
In which Jesus feeds a huge and hungry
crowd miraculously (noting that the passage itself never calls it a
miracle... just that a boy shared his small batch of food and
somehow, everyone got fed... some have suggested that perhaps (we
don't know this) the “miracle” was that, in seeing this boy
share his food, the crowd then began to scrape together what food
they each had and a Stone Soup sort of miracle happened... for what
it's worth);
In which Peter calls Jesus the Messiah
and Jesus tells him to keep it quiet;
In which Jesus returns to the
wilderness to pray;
In which, more healing;
In which Jesus predicts his death (a
second time... I missed the first!)
In which Jesus teaches his followers,
whoever is not against you is for you:
In which a Samaritan village (the
Samaritans and Jewish folk HATED each other) fails to welcome Jesus
and his disciples want him to wipe them out but Jesus rebukes his
disciples for the suggestion;
In which Jesus points out he and his
followers are basically homeless;
...Okay, that's all I'm going to do for now. I might want to finish
this but I think it stands pretty well as it is. Jesus in EACH and
EVERY chapter in the Gospels (or at least nearly) speaks in some way
or the other about siding with, working for the poor and
marginalized...
of being wary of wealth and those who wield it unjustly...
of being wary of religious rule makers/rule followers who'd suggest they speak for God...
about the Realm of God and his Good News
which he preached about the Realm of God (and how it is not once ever talked
about in terms of “and I'll let myself be killed and then that
blood which I shed will pay for your sins...”)
There IS a passage in Matthew 20 where Jesus does say he came to “give his life as a ransom for many...” But read that in context...
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
It is a passage about NOT striving to be part of the powerful, wealthy ruling class, but being servant leaders, which is very in fitting with the Realm of God, open to all, the poor and marginalized and all of us who embrace that grace-full Way.
And again, that sort of language is just entirely missing from all the references to Jesus and the disciples “preaching the good news of the realm of God...” It's just not there.
Then again, in Matthew 26, we have Jesus right before his death, having his “last supper” with his followers, and saying in that context, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for may for the forgiveness of sin...”
Likewise, at the beginning of his ministry, John the Baptist says about Jesus that he'd come to “take away the sin of the world...” which, maybe, a little.
Then, again in John 6, Jesus says he is “the bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever...”
I could be wrong, but I think those two to four passages are about the entirety of the argument from the four Gospel books that Jesus' “good news” that he preached (“Good News” being mentioned some 10-20 times) was more about a blood sacrifice to appease an angry God to achieve forgiveness (because the all-powerful, all-loving God, in this scenario, is somehow impotent to forgive outside of a blood sacrifice...)
On the other hand, you have language in each and every chapter that says outright or hints at the notion of the Realm of God being a welcoming place of Grace for all, especially/including the poor and marginalized. Nearly each and every chapter.
Not to start talking about the Prophets or Paul's epistles or the stories found in the OT, where the emphasis continues.
There, then, is my quick overview of The Four Gospels, “the gospel of the realm of God” and poverty and grace, over and against the human theories of a blood atonement to pay off and satisfy an angry god who stands impotent to forgive in the face of sin.
Maybe one day, I'll flesh this out further. Or maybe this book exists already?
There IS a passage in Matthew 20 where Jesus does say he came to “give his life as a ransom for many...” But read that in context...
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
It is a passage about NOT striving to be part of the powerful, wealthy ruling class, but being servant leaders, which is very in fitting with the Realm of God, open to all, the poor and marginalized and all of us who embrace that grace-full Way.
And again, that sort of language is just entirely missing from all the references to Jesus and the disciples “preaching the good news of the realm of God...” It's just not there.
Then again, in Matthew 26, we have Jesus right before his death, having his “last supper” with his followers, and saying in that context, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for may for the forgiveness of sin...”
Likewise, at the beginning of his ministry, John the Baptist says about Jesus that he'd come to “take away the sin of the world...” which, maybe, a little.
Then, again in John 6, Jesus says he is “the bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever...”
I could be wrong, but I think those two to four passages are about the entirety of the argument from the four Gospel books that Jesus' “good news” that he preached (“Good News” being mentioned some 10-20 times) was more about a blood sacrifice to appease an angry God to achieve forgiveness (because the all-powerful, all-loving God, in this scenario, is somehow impotent to forgive outside of a blood sacrifice...)
On the other hand, you have language in each and every chapter that says outright or hints at the notion of the Realm of God being a welcoming place of Grace for all, especially/including the poor and marginalized. Nearly each and every chapter.
Not to start talking about the Prophets or Paul's epistles or the stories found in the OT, where the emphasis continues.
There, then, is my quick overview of The Four Gospels, “the gospel of the realm of God” and poverty and grace, over and against the human theories of a blood atonement to pay off and satisfy an angry god who stands impotent to forgive in the face of sin.
Maybe one day, I'll flesh this out further. Or maybe this book exists already?
80 comments:
This would be a whole lot more convincing if you’d actually looked at the entirety of Jesus words.
The fact that you’ve posited a “political” Jesus when we don’t see Jesus taking on the political leaders at all, as well as force His words into your 21st century progressive box also doesn’t help your cause.
You’ve cherry picked a some proof-texts to support your pretext that Jesus fits in the box you’d like Him in.
It’s not a matter of being surprised, you’ve been peddling this one dimensional view of Jesus for years, it’s more about trying to broaden your horizons.
It also doesn’t help your case when you dismiss the writings of those who knew and learned directly from Jesus from being used to make the case. It’s easier for you if you can dismiss the prophecies and the writings of the disciples, it’s just intellectually dishonest.
“In summary, top ten things Jesus Christ spoke about were God, heaven, hell, making disciples, His own divine identity, prayer, faith, love, His heavenly Father, and the importance of keeping His Word by acting upon it.”
Politics and materially improving the lot of the poor don’t make the top 10?
“Besides pointing out a few of Jesus’ most common topics that he taught about, the point I’m trying to make is how easy it is to read into the Bible what we want to see. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that Jesus taught about money more than any other topic. The problem is, that’s not true. At least not in the way it’s often portrayed. And this is just one example of many of how we misuse Scripture. We should use the context of the Bible to shows us the point of the message and not just a singular verse. ”
Is that your own quote or just one from someone similarly confused?
Seriously, I think you're reading Ayn Rand. Look at the actual Bible. Here, start here...
Luke 1:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1&version=NIV
Luke 6:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6&version=NIV
Matthew 25:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+25&version=NIV
I don't think your bible is the real one.
But yes, Jesus DID speak of God and the Realm of God. It's that place where the poor and marginalized are welcomed. It's the place that the wealthy and powerful will have a hard time getting in. Hell, indeed, is the place that the rich and powerful and those who fail to "do for the least of these" are heading.
But you can't read Matthew 25 and say, "See! It's all about God, heaven and hell!" and ignore the point of the story.
You're missing something pretty significant.
But this does explain a lot. If you truly believe this imaginary bible is "real," well, that explains a lot.
Craig, I'm going to tell you this now and expect you to heed it if you want to comment here. No more... never again post un-cited quotes. They are meaningless.
Who said your quotes? Chuck Manson? Billy the Kid?
Future un-sourced quotes will be deleted summarily. They are irrelevant and meaningless.
Your last quote about finding whatever you want in the Bible is absolutely true, for what it's worth. For instance, you don't find any significant concern for Jesus on issues of wealth and poverty, when clearly, it's a core teaching. Here's one source (a pretty conservative sounding place...)
"Jesus talked much about money. Sixteen of the thirty-eight parables were concerned with how to handle money and possessions. In the Gospels, an amazing one out of ten verses (288 in all) deal directly with the subject of money..."
https://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/1996/december/410.html
And that appears to be just talking about "the subject of money..." does it include references to systems that were in place whereby women and the sick were marginalized because of the lack of money they had? Does it include teachings about the realm of God that Jesus preached the good news to the poor about?
I wish I could find some source that does all the counting for you, since you no doubt won't believe me.
I'm not saying that money/wealth/poverty/oppression issues are the thing that Jesus talked about the most (it may be, depending on how you look at it), but it is clearly central. Did you even read my post?
Here are two pretty conservative-sounding sources...
"After extensive research and seeking counsel from local pastors, I discovered that with the exception of God himself, the poor are the most talked about subject in all of Scripture. The Bible speaks on the poor, the widowed, and the destitute about 3,000 times."
https://blog.faithlife.com/blog/2015/02/rising-hope-reaching-the-homeless/
"I want you to guess what two topics are the most mentioned in the Bible? There are approximately 2350 verses about the most mentioned topic and around 300 verses regarding the second most mentioned topic. I will also tell you the top two topics are love and money/possessions (Here is my disclaimer - Every resource I utilize, varies some depending on the translation which is why I use the terms approximately and around). Drum roll please…
Love is second which makes money/possessions the most mentioned topic in the Bible!"
https://blogs.bible.org/impact/shane_barkley/whats_the_big_deal_about_money
I'm not verifying that these two gents are correct, just noting that, depending on how you count it, matters of wealth/poverty/oppression/grace for the oppressed/justice for the oppressed... these are amongst THE most talked about topics in the Bible and, as noted, core to Jesus' teachings. If you fail to understand that, I believe (my opinion, for what it's worth), you will fail to understand Jesus.
For a Bible worshipper isn’t it odd that Craig cannot quote scripture for Jesus not getting worked up about the poor and the informed and the imprisoned but he’s got modern American white male quotes about how the Bible “isn’t about what it says, or at least not in the way it is portrayed.”
Craig... " you’ve posited a “political” Jesus when we don’t see Jesus taking on the political leaders at all..."
Hint: maybe you're just not looking, because clearly, he is..."
Crqig... "as well as force His words into your 21st century progressive box also doesn’t help your cause..."
You need to keep in mind that I was an ultra conservative traditionalist who moved away from that tradition because of Jesus' words... not a liberal who looked to find liberal support in Jesus' words. Reality makes your claim here moot and ridiculous.
Craig... " It’s easier for you if you can dismiss the prophecies and the writings of the disciples, it’s just intellectually dishonest."
As I already noted, this theme of Grace and justice for the poor and oppressed and marginalized as a core biblical message is found throughout the Bible. Someone sure does need to broaden their horizons.
To be fair and honest, neither you nor feo have a great record with regard to citing the source of quotes you use. As a courtesy, I used to hyperlink everything I offered, but feo never did so I no longer do it 100% of the time. Questions of whether or not either of you take time to actually read the links suggest the time and effort to extend that courtesy is in vain...especially when there are no hard and fast rules to follow to prevent deletion.
Just sayin'.
To be fair and honest, I nearly always identify the source of my quotes, if not provide a link. I tend to provide fewer links when the thing we're talking about is very public knowledge. I don't tend to provide, for instance, links that point out the huge number of false claims that Trump makes because it's very clear to all but the delusional who wouldn't believe the point even if I provided a link. All one has to do is watch several clips of Trump to know that he makes regular, ridiculously false claims.
Just to be clear. Anything on the topic, Marshal?
Do you recognize that wealth/poverty and justice for the oppressed is a tremendously common theme throughout Jesus' teachings as well as the whole of the Bible? Or are you like Craig who, amazingly, thinks, "improving the economic condition of the poor wasn’t something He spent a lot of time on."...? Do you recognize that Craig is just embarrassingly mistaken on this point?
To be fair and honest Marshal would only look at the link and disparage the expert source of Science or Lancet periodicals or say the MSM are biased. He could counter anything, obviously, and frequently didn’t have the capacity to understand. So I stopped adding the link in hopes that the quote only would box him in to actually take on the content. Sometimes he did. But that resulted in increased idiocy, diversions, and lies.
Besides, if Marshal wants the source, google the quote. But he’s very lazy.
I'm well aware I can google anything. That's not the point. The point is courtesy...or as what Dan might call "grace"...in discourse. You make the claim or assertion, you provide a quote or "fact", back it up immediately. From that point, the job of the other guy is to read it and then, if so compelled, google the subject for more info for use as a counter. If one is convicted in one's beliefs, I don't see why that should be such a big deal and great effort.
And no, Dan, you post many quotes from Scripture without even adding the chapter and verse. This matters so as to examine the precise source to see if your understanding is reasonable and/or accurate. Again, if you're convicted in your belief...
"Do you recognize that wealth/poverty and justice for the oppressed is a tremendously common theme throughout Jesus' teachings as well as the whole of the Bible?"
I don't argue that it is mentioned several times, but I don't agree that it is the central issue of His earthly mission. I also don't agree that every mention is directed toward some "special" concern for the poor, but rather a concern for the condition of those who aren't helping the out. That is to say, if I'm NOT concerned with the poor, Jesus preaching to me about helping them out is for MY benefit...not for the benefit of the poor. To go further, if all who sin repent and live according to God's will, those who suffer as a result of those sinful behaviors will be better off in a collateral way...a positive and beneficial consequence of the sinner's repentance. Thus, if all who are greedy, oppressive, dismissive of the poor repent, they will be better off spiritually and "salvation-ally" and the poor and "marginalized" will be automatically. So is the concern of Christ really for the poor or the souls of those who oppress them?
Then of course, there is the problem alluded to in my opening statement of this comment: Are you understanding the verses you would use to back up your position? In your series of posts about the Bible and economics, it was quite clear to me that you weren't at all understanding the many verses you referenced to make your point. And I would contend that you include way too many references to "the poor" that are better understood as metaphor for "poor in spirit". This is when you choose to take things literally, but don't and ignore the context that should inform you properly one way or the other. I'm speaking generally here, as I've been specific in comments related to that series of your about economics in Scripture.
So to the extent that Craig said "improving the economic condition of the poor wasn't something He spent time on", he's not saying Christ spent no time. He's rejecting your apparent belief that Jesus purpose was directed toward the materially poor. That we should all pitch in for the benefit of the poor and marginalized isn't in question.
To feo's point, he does far more disparaging of sources than I do. When I do, it's because the sources are flawed and I present evidence and arguments that bear out the sentiment...which you both then disparage and reject in the very manner of which feo accuses me. There's that irony you love so much!
One more thing...as to your title, it suggests that someone like Craig or myself...or anyone... disputes that there is "Good News in the Gospels". That's just absurd. The dispute is over what the Good News is.
Marshal, do you recognize that anytime Jesus speaks of preaching the Good News that there is nothing in the context or text that says he is speaking of shedding his blood to pay off an Angry God so that we can be saved?
Do you recognize that in all the gospels there's only one to four instances of anything like the penal substitution atonement Theory model being suggested, and even there, it is only obliquely?
Marshal wants courtesy as he damns half of Americans. But he can’t even share with his partner Pharisee to get the information he claims to want. If he can’t work with Craig, why should we care why or what he whines about?
Dan,
I'm too busy to comment fully, but I'll note a couple of things.
!. Your post title specifically limits the discussion to the gospels, yet you must include all scripture in order to "make your point". It's also interesting that you have to include scripture you describe as "myth" to "make your point. You also originally exclude the "prophets" and the rest of the NT, until you need them to "make your point".
2. Your insistence on a "political" Jesus doesn't seem to fit either the actual words and actions of Jesus, nor of the early church.
RE Matt 25
1. It's a parable.
2. It's clear that the division between sheep and goats precedes the actions He commends.
3. The parable clearly warns of a consequence for the goats which include something that appears suspiciously like a Hell of eternal torment. Something that I've never seen you admit exists.
4. If you can't take the final part of the parable as a warning of a future reality, then why would you take the rest of the parable in such literal fashion?
1. It is bizarre to see Craig go beyond extreme liberals to infer that parables don't count.
2. It is bizarre to see Craig go behind extreme conservatives to claim that the passage is literally about Capra aegagrus hircus and Ovis aries and not about Homo sapiens.
3. Making it clear that Craig is in torment even now. And who wouldn't be? One must be in some kind of torment as a Christian when working so hard to to deny that grace is love, ministry is caring, and that all poor and all non-white people are not inferior God's cosmos to white people paying their mortgage.
4. Craig can't hear the gospel. So all he enacts is punishment. A hell of a way to live. Hell of way to die. Get enough of such people and Satan gets soooooo much done in the world. Trump is part of his works.
RE: your first 1... I don't "need" the rest of the Bible to make my point. As a Christian, I interpret all the Bible through the lens of Jesus' teachings, so Jesus is my starting point, as a Christian. I find this reasonable. Feel free to disagree.
Also, your first 1 (and this is a common theme for you, so other places, too)... You appear to take great umbrage that I note that parts of the OT are written in an apparently mythic style. You appear to equate Myth = Fake, or Unreliable. It's not. Myth is just a way of telling a story, like Parable or Fiction is. There's nothing at all wrong with myth. Myth can be a way of passing on Truths (which I think is the case in biblical myths). Truths are eternal and applicable to all generations, it doesn't matter if the Truth is passed on in a myth.
Re: Your first 2... You are free to ignore the clearly political actions and words of Jesus. It is quite clear that the people of the first century (whose very lives were put on the line by the policies he confronted and advocated) did not miss the political implications of Jesus' teachings. I believe you ignore the policies because you are looking at Jesus' teachings from a shallow, decontextualized modernist view of a fairy tale Jesus, rather than the hard hitting reality of the first century Man, Jesus.
Yes, on all your points, Feodor. Bizarre, indeed.
Craig, on your second list of points...
1. It's a parable.
? So? It's a parable that teaches the truth about how very serious our actions are as it relates to the poor and the wealthy and those who ignore the poor and marginalized.
Are you suggesting that Truths found in parables don't count??
I truly have no idea of why you appear to be antagonistic towards parables and myths, as if that discounts Truths passed on within them.
I mean, do you think that Aesop's Fable about the Ant and the Grasshopper was literally about two insects and NOT to pass on the Truth about being prepared?
Bizarre.
2. It's clear that the division between sheep and goats precedes the actions He commends.
? If so, so what? Do you truly think THAT is the point of the story? (Hint: No, it's not. It just isn't.)
What is clear is that the Truth passed on in the story is that those who failed to side with the least of these were doomed to a hellish existence. And that those who sided with the poor and marginalized sided with Jesus/God/the Good.
3. The parable clearly warns of a consequence for the goats which include something that
appears suspiciously like a Hell of eternal torment. Something that I've never seen you admit exists.
Dammit, boy. Hell EXISTS. I've seen it in polluted creeks and oppressed peoples. I've seen it in the mistreatment of children and those with disabilities. I've seen it in the rape of women and children and the denial of the brutalization of rape and harassment by religious types. Fuck it, YES, Hell exists. Those who refuse to side with the poor and the marginalized are creating it all the time.
But what in the name of all that is holy does that have to do AT ALL with the point I'm making... that the truth in this core, central story of Jesus' teachings is that we are to side with, work for the poor and marginalized and that to fail to do so means we've missed the point of God?
4. If you can't take the final part of the parable as a warning of a future reality, then why would you take the rest of the parable in such literal fashion?
Because I understand the point of the parable and the point is NOT that there is a literal lake of fire waiting bad boys?
Seriously, I think part of the problem with Pharisees and evangelical conservative fundamentalist types is that they have a complete inability to appreciate allegory and creative illustrations and irony and sarcasm. It's like the point just goes right over your head while you're focusing on... something other than the rather obvious teaching of the story.
I guess if you lived in Jesus' day, you, too, would say, "Jesus, I don't get the point of this story... can you explain it...?" Except, no, you wouldn't. You'd just get it wrong and assume you understood it and if even Jesus corrected you, you'd prattle on about "but YOU SAID it was a myth!" or some such nonsense.
If you don’t need the rest of the Bible to make your point, then why invoke it as opposed to the gospels you’ve limited yourself to initially?
You’ve used the “myth” trope for years as a way to marginalize parts of scripture you don’t like or find problematic. My point is that you are quick to play the “myth” card when it benefits you, but ignore it when it doesn’t. The fact that you’re now choosing to take parts of scripture that you’ve labeled as “myth” in a literal sense just raises questions about your imprecise and selective application of “myth” status.
I’m not saying that Jesus teachings had no political implications, just that the bulk of the Jews were looking for a political messiah and clearly Jesus wasn’t political. Further, Jesus never takes on Rome, He’s not crucified because He’s a
attacking Rome but because some Jews didn’t like His attacks on them. Pilate (the Roman) found no guilt in Jesus, and crucified Him under the banner “King of the Jews”.
But if you want to create a 21st century progressive political Jesus, I can’t stop you.
I’m in no way antagonistic towards parables, just against interpreting them in a woodenly literal fashion.
It’s clear that the sides are not determined by the actions, rather that the actions are determined by the sides. If you are suggesting that a goat can become a sheep by its actions, then your simply advocating works righteousness.
Ahhhhhh, the redefine Hell argument. It’s creative but it doesn’t mesh with Jesus description in Matt 25. Which is my point, you take the first section and last section figuratively, while hewing to a woodenly literal interpretation of the middle section. Yet you can’t justify why those interpretations are correct.
4. Again, you make my point. You arbitrarily assign a metaphorical meaning to the final section of the parable with no logical reason to do so. You’ve simply decided that Hell is “polluted creeks” etc, and can’t possibly be the eternal result of Sin that Jesus portrayed. He’s clearly talking “polluted creek” when He says “outer darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth”.
As much as I’d love to take the time to point out the words of Jesus that point away from the one dimensional 21st century progressive version you’ve created, I just don’t have time this week. Between a sudden medical issue with my dog and a house that I have to get ready to go on the market by Thursday, I don’t have the time. If things slow down next week I’ll put something together.
I’m in no way antagonistic towards parables, just against interpreting them in a woodenly literal fashion
?
??!?
I don't think you're understanding how metaphors and analogies and Parables work. Your comments aren't making any sense.
I literally did not take the parable of the sheep and goats literally. Taking it literally would assume there's a king separating literal sheep from literal goats. The point of the parable according to really, anyone, is that followers of God will look out for the poor and marginalized. And that if you're not looking out for the poor and marginalized, you're not a follower of God. That's the truth of the story, that's not taking it literally. Do you understand the difference?
"1. It's a parable." Uninterpreted. Zero additional words to explain what he means. He doesn't really know what he means.
For example, myth is not a trope. It's a genre. Which has to be interpreted. When Dan, along with biblical scholarship of intelligence, says a passage is myth, what is being pointed out is that certain sorts of interpretative attention is paid and not others. I.e., what is to be read as allegory? What typology? What is pure entertainment? What are the actual conditions of the writer being hyperbolized in mythic language? Myth is no history. The referents are not 1:1 equivalent to reality.
A example of trope would the be the tree of paradise. What does it represent as a figure of speech?
When I claim that Craig, Marshal, and Stan, et al, are Judaizer's, I'm using a trope to represent the reality that while they claim to be Christians, they are anti-Christs in the sense that they do not bring good news to anyone. Only bad news. I learned this trope from St. Paul in Galations. And love using it.
"As much as I’d love to take the time..." He's resigning in order to spend more time iwht his family. Yeah.
Wait. What?
...What do you THINK the moral or lesson from the parable of the sheep and goats is, Craig?
This is just weird.
Craig... "You’ve used the “myth” trope for years as a way to marginalize parts of scripture you don’t like or find problematic."
1. When I point out that a text appears to be written using mythic language, styling, the intent is not to marginalize it.
That is, my intentions in noting that Genesis 1 reads like a myth is NOT to marginalize it. My intent is that I'm looking at the text and thinking, "huh. This reads like a myth." There is no "intent," there's just observation. And it certainly is not an attempt to marginalize Genesis.
Do you recognize that reality?
2. Noting that Genesis one reads like a myth and no way marginalizes it any more than noting that the parable of the sheep and goats reads like a parable. It's just an observation on the genre type, something intelligent readers should do when reading a text. In noting that reads like a myth, it doesn't say anything at all negative about Genesis 1.
Do you recognize that reality?
3. Rather, conservative types hear the word myth and assume bad intent and an attempt to marginalize because they apparently have a problem with the notion of myths. As if a fiction or figurative story is somehow less worthwhile than a nonfiction. But it's not a failing of the genre. It's a quirk of the one who views the genre to be faulty or flawed or lesser.
Do you think that myths are inherently less valuable than, say, a history story or a science story? Do you recognize that that's your quirk and not a fault of the genre?
4. I don't find Genesis to be Mythic in nature because I find the texts problematic. I find it Mythic because it reads like a myth. It has the traits of a myth.
Do you recognize that reality?
"I literally did not take the parable of the sheep and goats literally."
It's not a parable. It's more an analogy. People will be separated "as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goat." You're not really good with the concept of analogies, so I'm not surprised you don't recognize an actual one. You're welcome.
"When I point out that a text appears to be written using mythic language, styling, the intent is not to marginalize it."
Yet you're very dismissive of whatever was intended by citing such a text because it "reads like a myth" to you. But I would ask again, as I have in the past in not so many words, in your mind, does a passage that "reads like a myth" mean that it couldn't possibly have happened exactly as that passage that "reads like a myth" describes it? Just wondering.
"Rather, conservative types hear the word myth and assume bad intent and an attempt to marginalize because they apparently have a problem with the notion of myths."
This is not true. Conservative "types" hear people like you using the word to describe passages used to support a premise in order to rebut the premise...as if because it reads like a myth, one cannot or shouldn't take it as true. This alone wouldn't be so bad, but it NEVER comes with an alternative interpretation of the passage or anything else that supports the objection to its use to support the premise. Said another way, attaching "myth" to the passage is a cheap way to avoid addressing the premise supported by the passage so described by those like yourself...meaning, YOU yourself.
"Do you think that myths are inherently less valuable than, say, a history story or a science story?"
Each of these can be abused to serve a preferred agenda. You make the "myth" out to be of lesser value than science when it serves you to do so especially as it concerns Scriptural citations used to support a premise you do not favor.
"Marshal, do you recognize that anytime Jesus speaks of preaching the Good News that there is nothing in the context or text that says he is speaking of shedding his blood to pay off an Angry God so that we can be saved?"
But that's what the Good News is...except for your intentional corruption. It's to "pay off" a Just God so that we can be saved. That you demand Christ MUST say those exact words every time He mentions "Good News" is inane. That He doesn't do so doesn't make it any less true.
"Do you recognize that in all the gospels there's only one to four instances of anything like the penal substitution atonement Theory model being suggested, and even there, it is only obliquely?"
I recognize that you think it matters when it suits you and doesn't when it works against you. Craig just spoke of how many times various topics are mentioned and you weren't pleased that it didn't back your position. Now you think it matters that an issue isn't spoken on enough for you. But anyone called "the Lamb of God" is clearly tasked with substituting Himself for the rest of us, otherwise He wouldn't be called that.
more coming...
With regard to Matt 25:31-46, do you suppose that only poor people can be hungry or thirsty and without the ability to provide for themselves? Can't a wealthy person be in such a position where a Christian might have to decide whether or not to help out? How about in need of a coat or clean clothes? How about sick? We know wealthy people get locked up now and then. Are only the poor God's people? Aren't you being just a bit sanctimonious and presumptuous to insist that this passage is referring only to the poor as opposed to any of God's people?
Marshal thinks god is really disturbed and wants the church to gear up in action when Marshall wakes up at 3am and his stomach growls.
Marshal... "It's not a parable"
Craig called it a parable. I was deferring to his term, but you're correct, at least in that the text does not call it a parable. It's a matter of semantics. It certainly operates as a parable (a simple fictional/allegorical story told to make a point or give a moral), so, by definition, it is a parable, if you want to quibble.
Marshall... "You're not really good with the concept of analogies, so I'm not surprised you don't recognize an actual one. "
You're not really good with words and you are combative, but not very good at it, so I'm not surprised you don't recognize a parable when you read one, nor that you try to engage in a fight over words in which you lose. You're welcome.
Marshall... " you're very dismissive of whatever was intended by citing such a text because it "reads like a myth" to you. "
No, it reads like a myth to anyone who looks at it objectively. If that same story were in another text, you'd call it a myth. It has the elements of the genre of Myth, and came from a time when history tended (nearly exclusively, I believe) to be told in mythic fashion.
Marshal... "Does a passage that "reads like a myth" mean that it couldn't possibly have happened exactly as that passage that "reads like a myth" describes it?"
No. But then, if we are talking about something that is beyond physical knowledge, we'd have no reason to believe it happened literally as it happened. If something READS like a myth and describes things that we know didn't happen (i.e., the universe is not 6,000 years old and the earth was not created in six days), why would anyone insist on treating it as a literal history?
But then, if you're a science denier, you don't have to worry about such questions.
Marshal... "if because it reads like a myth, one cannot or shouldn't take it as true."
I don't know how many times I need to say this. Just because something is mythic does not make the story "not true." But if a story is counter factual, that DOES mean that the story is not factual.
The world was not created in six days, 6,000 years ago. Do you recognize that reality? The earth didn't magically "fill up with water that didn't exist prior to the flood and magically disappeared after the flood. Do you recognize that reality. Noah didn't fill up a boat with two of every animal on the earth. Do you recognize that reality?
I'm fine with the notion of miracles. I find those who claim to believe in magic, however, to not have much of a leg to stand on. Our God is not a magic God performing little tricks to amuse and amaze.
" so, by definition, it is a parable, if you want to quibble."
No. It's not a parable. It's an analogy. What the passage speaks of "is like" a shepherd...etc. It is analogous to a shepherd...etc. Not a parable, and not a quibble. It is what it is, which is an analogy.
"You're not really good with words..."
I just clearly proved that I am. Perhaps you were referring to something else about the passage. But the sheep and goats part? Not a parable. It's an analogy.
"No, it reads like a myth to anyone who looks at it objectively. If that same story were in another text, you'd call it a myth. It has the elements of the genre of Myth, and came from a time when history tended (nearly exclusively, I believe) to be told in mythic fashion."
You miss the point, which is that you say it "reads like a myth" when you need to dismiss the premise of the person who cited the passage you say "reads like a myth".
If I read it in another text, it wouldn't be the Bible and I would not look at it as if it was the Word of God, so it doesn't matter how it would look in another text.
It also doesn't matter if you believe it has "element of the genre of the myth". I say all myths seek to copy Scripture in order to lend a degree of credence...because Scripture is actually true. At this point you might try to argue that other cultures had written texts before the Hebrews. That doesn't matter. Oral tradition weighed heavily back then and one tradition could easily be older without having been written down first. Just sayin'.
"But then, if we are talking about something that is beyond physical knowledge, we'd have no reason to believe it happened literally as it happened."
You mean like the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?
"If something READS like a myth and describes things that we know didn't happen (i.e., the universe is not 6,000 years old and the earth was not created in six days)..."
We don't "know" this.
"But then, if you're a science denier, you don't have to worry about such questions."
Choosing not to pretend we "know" what we have no actual way of knowing does not make me a science denier. It makes me less gullible simply because...science. You assume science is infallible on the subject of creation. I do not. Thus, I take no position on the subject. I've been quite consistent on that.
More coming...
At Stan’s blog, Stan and Craig are talking about the first chapter of James. But I don’t think Craig has paid attention to James:
“Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up, and the rich in being brought low, because the rich will disappear like a flower in the field. For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the field; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. It is the same way with the rich; in the midst of a busy life, they will wither away....
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world...
My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?”
Jesus. Marshall is embarrassing himself.
A parable is a brief story with a moral. Many stories use analogies. Or not.
Marshal reads at a 6th grade level.
"I don't know how many times I need to say this. Just because something is mythic does not make the story "not true." But if a story is counter factual, that DOES mean that the story is not factual."
Yeah, you said that. But when you use the "reads like myth" argument to dismiss a premise based on OT Scripture, you're saying the passage in question is not factual, true, accurate or a record of an actual event. And by saying it is counter factual, you are putting your belief in something of this world (the best effort of man to understand creation) over the Word of God as revealed to us in Scripture. The former is not "factual", but a belief you find more compelling than the Word of God. You're free to do so. But you're not free to label as fact that which is not proven to be so, but only believed to be so by the best guess of science.
"The world was not created in six days, 6,000 years ago. Do you recognize that reality?"
It's not a reality. It's the best guess of science to describe what it is not equipped to truly know with absolute certainty, and thus no more than a different belief.
"The earth didn't magically "fill up with water that didn't exist prior to the flood and magically disappeared after the flood. Do you recognize that reality."
The reality is that you don't want to believe this story. That's you're right and privilege. You can even pretend you know with absolute certainty that your preference is reality. When you can prove it's the case, let me know.
By the way, "magically" in this case would more accurately be "miraculously", but let's not quibble.
"Noah didn't fill up a boat with two of every animal on the earth. Do you recognize that reality?"
There's no way of confirming or disproving this. That's the reality.
"I'm fine with the notion of miracles. I find those who claim to believe in magic, however, to not have much of a leg to stand on"
This is an absurd statement. Perhaps one day you can make two lists: on one side list all the miracles from Scripture. On the other side, all the "magic tricks" from Scripture. Please provide an explanation for determining which is which.
"Our God is not a magic God performing little tricks to amuse and amaze."
Again, which is which? 6 day creation a miracle and the resurrection of Christ a magic trick, or is it the other way around? How can you tell?
M: Not a parable. It's an analogy.
Good Lord. Give up, man. You're arguing a stupid point and embarrassing yourself while doing it. This is part of why it's difficult to talk with you all... You debate every little meaningless point as if it is important.
It is, again, by definition a parable, or can be counted as such. Where is the grammatical ruling that a parable can't be allegorical? It doesn't exist.
"A parable is usually shorter, with a moral message readily apparent to the reader."
https://socratic.org/questions/what-s-the-difference-between-parables-and-allegory
It's a parable and an allegory, but certainly, a parable.
"Like fable, the parable also tells a simple story. But, whereas fables tend to personify animal characters—often giving the same impression as does an animated cartoon—the typical parable uses human agents. Parables generally show less interest in the storytelling and more in the analogy they draw between a particular instance of human behaviour (the true neighbourly kindness shown by the good Samaritan in the Bible story, for example) and human behaviour at large."
https://www.britannica.com/art/fable-parable-and-allegory
It's a parable, by definition.
"The main difference between Allegory and Parable is that the Allegory is a figure of speech and Parable is a succinct, didactic story which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles."
https://www.askdifference.com/allegory-vs-parable/
"In this parable, Jesus likens the goats to those Christians that SAID they loved him, but did not lift a finger to help those less fortunate."
http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/nuggets_8.htm
It's a parable.
I go on to make this point because this is something that Pharisees/Fundamentalists often do... They get something in their mind, or they hear a teacher they like make a point, and it sticks with them and that irrelevant little point (oft-times a mistaken point) becomes Sacred to them. They conflate human tradition and their own opinions with Fact and God's Word.
In this case, Marshal, you're just mistaken. The sheep and the goats fits the definition of parable and it's clear. Further, there's not a "court" you can appeal to in order to support your insistence on your mistaken hunch. You assert this claim as if it's a fact and clearly, 1. It's an opinion and, 2. It's a mistaken opinion.
Admit it and move on.
Marshal... "when you use the "reads like myth" argument to dismiss a premise based on OT Scripture, you're saying the passage in question is not factual, true, accurate or a record of an actual event.
When I note that a passage is mythic in nature and someone else is saying that it's scientific or historic in nature, I'm noting that they are simply mistaken. Genesis 1 is NOT written in a literal history style, by simple observation of the genre being used AND by the reality that the world was not created 6,000 years ago in six days.
Marshal... The reality is that you don't want to believe this story.
I believed that story for over half my life, as if it were a factual telling of an actual historic event that happened just as it was written. I didn't change my mind (wanting to believe the story) because I didn't want to believe the story. That's just an irrational suggestion... I ALREADY BELIEVED THE STORY AND WANTED TO CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THE STORY. I had no internal motivation to stop believing the story. Where in that is "Dan didn't want to believe..."?
I stopped taking it as a literal history when I realized, 1. the data doesn't support that conclusion and 2. There's no biblical reason to insist upon taking it as a literal history.
Marshal, do you KNOW how much water it would take to cover all the land? To cover Mt Ararat? More than is on the earth. Where did that extra water come from? Magic? Do you know how large a boat would have to be to... never mind. It's just not possible and we simply have no reason to take it as a literal history.
COULD God have "faked" a very old earth to "test" us or something, making the earth look older than it is by planting fake fossils and minerals, etc? Sure, an all might God can do anything. God could make your head be full of fake understanding, just to throw you off, for instance.
And you know what? That's what happened. God just told me and your not understanding how wrong you are is just a confirmation of the miracle of God confusing you so thoroughly!
Thank you, Magic Trickster God!
Marshall, no more comments denying reality. You are, of course, free to believe in fairy dust and magic sparkles and that the earth is 6,000 years old and a trickster god only is making it look old, but there's no need to post further idiocies like that.
IF you have an actual scientist (and not a "creationist scientist") who has data that disproves the multiple ways we know the age of the earth is more than 6,000 years old or that water covered the whole planet ~5,000 years ago, post the data. This should be from a non-Christian fundamentalist type scientist because ONE of the reasons we use scientific processes is that it is demonstrable and other scientists can investigate and find the same results. Peer research. If a fundamentalist scientist can come up with real data proving a 6,000 year old earth, that scientist should be able to prove it to his peers, including non-Christian peers. Show me data from one of THOSE peer scientists and you can comment here on this absurdity.
Otherwise, just give it up. I won't debate you on a magic trickster god theory of science.
Meanwhile, Dan, I believe God repents of Torah injunctions against non-heterosexual persons.
Like god repented (נחם) of making humans in Genesis 6.
Like god repented (נחם) of making Saul King in 1 Samuel 15.
Like god repented (שוב) before he destroyed Israel in the desert in Exodus 32.
Like god repented (נחם) before the angel sent the pestilence against Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21.
Like god repented ( נחם) and brought exiled Israel back in Psalm 106.
There is a pastor who holds to a Calvinistic soteriology like Marshal who has written, "the repentance of God is his expression of a different attitude and action about something past or future—not because events have taken him off guard, but because events make the expression of a different attitude more fitting now than it would have been earlier."
I believe that god repents in this way of ancient cultic Torah prohibitions of non-heterosexual persons.
https://www.desiringgod.org/authors/john-piper
I would very much like to address your responses, and do so without fear of deletion. My computer, which I prefer to use, is out of service for a couple of days, so I'm forced to use my phone. Please bear with me, and allow me to deal with most of your last three comments before responding. This will probably be broken down in numerous comment boxes, but I'm going to try to deal as chronologically as possible. To begin...
I don't believe it's "arguing a stupid point" to properly define terms, especially when deciding what in Scripture can be taken literally when and why...particularly when it's a question of what is told as an actual fact or is told simply to make a point. The only point being made is that the Son of Man will separate people, "MUCH LIKE A SHEPHERD SEPARATES SHEEP AND GOATS", when it's time to decide who is and who isn't going to Heaven. That's it. There's no other reference to livestock from that point on.
It's also not a parable because the passage is speaking specifically and distinctly about what's to come. There's no "allegorical" parallel between a made up story representing the real world. It IS the real world, in the same way it was when Jesus predicted His betrayal. The passage is saying, "this is going to happen".
Thus, if it was a parable, Jesus would've said something like, "There once was a shepherd who had both sheep and goats..." There's nothing like that...simply a simple comparison, like someone saying, "the crowd moved like a herd of cattle". Is that now a "Parable if the Cattle"?
Thus, I don't need you to provide a definition of "parable" for me, as if doing so is proof that makes the two lines referencing sheep and goats a parable. It doesn't.
The entire passage from 31-46 is neither allegorical (a word I never used) nor a parable.
Stop right there. Full Stop. End.
IF you would like, you could say, "I don't find the Sheep and Goats to be best described as a parable... in my opinion, it's better considered to be an allegory, but not a parable..." You could say that.
But you can't say, "it's not a parable." That is a break with reality, as very clearly, it fits the definition of a parable and many people recognize it as such.
If you are delusional, please get help. If you can admit that yes, it does fit the definition of a parable... it's just that, in YOUR OPINION, it's more like an allegory, then you can comment here. If you can't get past the fundamentalism/Pharisaism of insisting you and you alone are right on this point, then you're done on this thread.
Marshal... It's also not a parable because the passage is speaking specifically and distinctly about what's to come.
So? Who said that parables can't mention things to come? Jesus used other parables that mention "what it will be like..." speaking of future realities within the context of a parable.
The parable of the faithful servant. "Beware, for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey..." (Mark 13).
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Which speaks of how it will be in the afterlife... (Luke 16)
For instance.
I don't need you to provide a definition of "parable" for me
Apparently I do. Your definition of Parable is arbitrary and not commonly accepted. Do you recognize that?
A parable is a short story with a lesson. The sheep and goats is a short story with a lesson. It fits the definition of parable and no amount of fundamentalist, "My way or the highway" changes reality. You can't bully your way into being correct, not when you're flatly wrong, by definition.
What definition of Parable are you using?
"I go on to make this point because this is something that Pharisees/Fundamentalists often do.."
Now you equate fundamentalists with Pharisees? Where's the grace in THAT? Grammar and proper word usage isn't a religious thing. Confusion is avoided when both sides of a debate are speaking the same language, and when dealing with a leftist that's important given how easily they corrupt meanings and definitions of words and concepts to move their agenda forward. Common ground is difficult to find under such circumstances.
"They conflate human tradition and their own opinions with Fact and God's Word."
You've yet to prove I've ever done this, though you assert it constantly when you've no true counter argument, while in the meantime it could just as easily be said of you, though I would prefer you simply support your hunches with evidence.
As to hunches, I not put one forth in this instance. I can clearly see, so no guessing is required. No opinion is necessary to offer. It is what it is. If I see a Honda Civic, it's not an opinion or hunch to say it's a car. I don't need to appeal to anything or anyone
I'm done with this point.
No, Marshal. You're not done. You pharisaically insisted that you had the answer and that the answer was that the S/G was NOT a parable.
It literally meets the definition of a parable. You're just mistaken. Which is fine, it happens. But I need you to recognize and acknowledge that point. I am insisting upon it because of your pharisaical/fundamentalist approach to the Bible, Truth and "being right." The pharisees of the world don't hold opinions, they issue proclamations and do so in the name of Jesus, as if THEY were speaking on behalf of God... it's not matter of opinion, you can agree with me (because I'm factually right) or you can be wrong... all while they're speaking about what is clearly an opinion (and oftentimes clearly a wrong opinion).
So, you can't slither away again, you need to admit your error. Or provide the dictionary definition that supports your claim and why your dictionary outweighs all other dictionaries. That ball is in your court. As you note, "Common ground is difficult to find under such circumstances..." and that's right. I'm using standard definitions (common ground) for parable. You're claiming those definitions don't matter, you have the right answer.
Bullshit.
To be clear, I can insist upon you recognizing the definition because it IS the definition. It's not fundamentalist of me to ask you to accept reality. Just like it's not fundamentalist of me to expect that you recognize that the data demonstrates that the earth/universe are not 6,000 years old. I'm just asking you to acknowledge reality.
It's when someone holds a non-proven point and insist that they are right, their opinions are facts and that God agrees with them that a behavior crosses over into fundamentalism.
I encourage you to Google "The Sheep and the Goats" and review the first paragraph in Wikipedia's description wherein it differs with you that it fits the definition of "parable", while acknowledging it is often referred as such. Or are you going to insist on another Bandwagon Fallacy to force me into compliance or silence? Repeating the definition does NOT equate to proving S&G fits the definition no matter how badly you think beating me over the head with it does.
Wikipedia...
" It is sometimes characterised as a parable, although unlike most parables it does not purport to relate a story of events happening to other characters."
It is sometimes characterized as a parable, as they rightly note, because it fits the definition of a parable. Not everyone calls it a parable, but it still fits the definition of parable.
Last chance: What is YOUR definition of parable?
No other comments will be entertained.
It's easy, like this:
Parable: a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle
Merriam Webster
Parable: A parable is a short and simple story that teaches a religious or moral lesson.
Vocabulary.com
Parable: a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
Dictionary.com
Parable: which signifies placing beside or together, a comparison, a parable is therefore literally a placing beside, a comparison, a similitude, an illustration of one subject by another.
BibleStudyTools.com
Parable: A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse that illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters.
A PARABLE IS A TYPE OF ANALOGY.
Wikipedia
++++++
In ALL of these standard English definitions, S/G fits the definition. Do you agree with that reality?
All but one of the above defines parable as "a story". The two sentences that mention sheep and goats does not constitute a story, thus it is not a parable. It does satisfy the definition of an analogy, however. So if you're going to say every analogy is a parable, then you're really stretching the definition out of shape in order to "be right". As such, I don't have a problem with any of those definitions. I have a problem with you forcing the definitions to make a story out of two sentences. Also, in my world, sherp and goats aren't human, so maybe that's where we're having troubles between us.
Can I move on now?
It is literally "a short allegorical story... designed to teach a truth." The allegory is a "king separating sheep and goats." God is not a literal king, the nations are not literal animals. Allegorical. The lesson is that God's followers WILL watch out for the poor and marginalized. Thus, it literally fits the definition of a parable, or at least reasonable people can and do see it that way.
Do you recognize that reality?
"God is not a literal king,"
Really, can you prove this claim?
I'd argue that what I think it means and what you think it means isn't the relevant question. The relevant question is, "What did Jesus mean when He said it?"
Some other relevant questions.
What sorts of claims is Jesus making about Himself?
What does this tell us about a coming judgement?
What does this tell us about what happens after Judgement?
Is Jesus teaching that "works" can transform a goat into a sheep?
What is the significance in Jesus making the division between sheep and goats before addressing their actions?
What in god’s name could Craig think literally makes god a king?
Crown?
Sword?
Kingdom with mountains, rivers, and otters?
Robes?
Jesus, god, the dunciad of it all.
Craig, please answer the questions put to you, if you're going to comment here.
As to your questions, I'll take time to answer one...
Is Jesus teaching that "works" can transform a goat into a sheep?
Jesus is identifying those who looked out for the least of these as beloved sheep. As humans, we have the literal ability to make up our minds and choose our actions.
Do you disagree?
We can choose to live a life that embraces grace and justice and, therefore, works with and for the poor and marginalized.
Do you disagree?
Jesus is saying THOSE people, the grace and justice embraces, are part of his realm. Those who choose to ignore the needs of others and who abandon grace, they are accursed, bringing hell down upon themselves.
Do you disagree?
Marshal is a corrupt hypocrite. Too cowardly to face opponents in the open about gun control he blocks intimidating intelligence altogether.
And has the blindness if character to write this:
“I recognize that upon reading this response you will use it to disparage my position and character because I dared to part with you in total agreement without caveat or exception, and you will show your typical cowardice, lack of grace and tolerance by deleting this comment, rather than responding with some form of mature and thoughtful response of your own.”
"It is literally "a short allegorical story... designed to teach a truth.""
The passage in question does not qualify. It is not a fictional story. It is a foretelling of how things will be. There's no "hidden meaning" typical of an allegory or allegorical story. It is quite plain. The meaning of the passage is very clear and unambiguous.
"The allegory is a "king separating sheep and goats.""
The King is not separating sheep and goats. He is separating PEOPLE "AS a shepherd separates his sheep and goats." "Sheep and goats" might rightly be called "allegorical"...more precisely "metaphor"...but the passage itself is not allegorical. However, once again, I never mentioned the word "allegorical". I questioned your improper use of "parable" in favor of the more accurate "analogy". A parable is a form of analogy, but not every analogy is a parable. This passage isn't a parable. It is a foretelling of how things will be.
"The lesson is that God's followers WILL watch out for the poor and marginalized."
Here you assume that "the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the sick, the naked, the jailed" can only mean "the poor and marginalized". Where does it say that in the passage? Are you suggesting only the poor can be in need of help or service from another with the ability to provide it? The passage certainly doesn't.
"Thus, it literally fits the definition of a parable, or at least reasonable people can and do see it that way.
Do you recognize that reality?"
Oh, I'm nothing if not reasonable and many, many people do not see it as you do. Thus, this your latest attempt to invoke the Bandwagon fallacy doesn't persuade. I prefer a good, evidence-based argument for that. To that end, I would encourage you to dispense with this appeal to reality, which is no more than a demand for agreement with YOU, and simply make your case without regard to how many might see things your way, as if polling data equates to truth.
"Where in that is "Dan didn't want to believe..."?"
I never said you "didn't want to believe". I said, you don't want to believe what Scripture says on that which you regard as "mythic". Examples follow when you said...
"I stopped taking it as a literal history when I realized, 1. the data doesn't support that conclusion and 2. There's no biblical reason to insist upon taking it as a literal history."
Regarding #1, there's no data that confirms with absolute certainty just how, say, the world was created or whether or not a specific event occurred, an example of which will follow shortly, and
#2, there's no reason why Scripture MUST state in specific words of your approval that one must take ANYTHING within it as literally true. You default to this unreasonable demand anytime you wish to dismiss that which you find inconvenient.
"Marshal, do you KNOW how much water it would take to cover all the land? To cover Mt Ararat? More than is on the earth. Where did that extra water come from? Magic? Do you know how large a boat would have to be to... never mind. It's just not possible and we simply have no reason to take it as a literal history."
Do you know that it is impossible to reanimate dead cells, and thus it is impossible to reanimate dead people, much less for dead people to reanimate themselves? How did Christ do that? Magic? What makes something miraculous is the impossibility of it. That would include an amount of water for which WE cannot account. So YOU'RE argument is that a miracle is impossible because the impossible cannot happen, but you're going to accept some miracles and not others for reasons you have yet to explain.
"COULD God have "faked" a very old earth to "test" us or something, making the earth look older than it is by planting fake fossils and minerals, etc?"
I don't understand why you would present this scenario. It's certainly not anything I've ever entertained. It seems that you're putting the work of humans (scientists) above God and Scripture in which to put your unshakeable faith. And thus you invent this "trickster God" concept to mock those who put their unshakeable faith in God above any confidence in humans. For all I know, the scientists might be absolutely correct in their computations and conclusions. OR, they're totally off and what they've concluded is simply the best they've been able to ascertain with regard to that which there is no possibility of confirming so far.
You're more than free to bend the knee to science. That's your right. I don't hold them in that high regard. Nor do I concern myself that those like yourself find that worthy of mockery. But Scripture warns against such behavior.
Marshall... Here you assume that "the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the sick, the naked, the jailed" can only mean "the poor and marginalized". Where does it say that in the passage?
Good Lord, you're hopeless.
I'll address one more, but really, I'm done and you're done, Marshal.
It's certainly not anything I've ever entertained. It seems that you're putting the work of humans (scientists) above God and Scripture in which to put your unshakeable faith.
For the ONE MILLIONTH TIME: I'm NOT putting the work of humans above God and Scripture. I'm putting the data above YOUR DUMB-ASSED OPINIONS about God and ill-informed and irrational hunches about Scripture.
Unlike you, I don't conflate Marshal's opinions with God's Word.
I just saw where Marshall, out loud, said that he will not condemn slavery. That he cannot condemn one human being only another human being as evil. Thus, I've asked Marshall to go away. Or at least go away until such time as he repents of that diabolical inability to meet the barest standard of human decency. And I'm going to ask Craig to go away as well, unless he can condemn slavery.
Craig or any other conservatives who might be reading this, if you can't condemn slavery as an evil, the owning of one human being by another human being, then go away. Craig, you particularly, I need you to tell me that you can condemn slavery as an evil. Don't try to make it complicated. Don't do your typical Dodges about biblical slavery vs American slavery.
I'm talking about one human being owning another human being. It is evil. Can you agree with that?
If you can't, then go away, as well.
Good Lord.
Now you're lying. I never said that I wouldn't or don't condemn slavery. This then is why you delete...so you can lie about someone who has your number, who won't jump through your self-serving hoops, who won't buy into your false sanctimony and false Christian posturing.
So, DO it. Tell me that you agree with the rest of the right thinking world that slavery - a human OWNING another human - is always a great atrocity.
Because what you JUST SAID earlier today was, and I quote, "it is quite enough for me to assert that one person owning another is LESS THAN DESIRABLE..."
Getting unwanted cheese on your hamburger is less than desirable. Slavery is an atrocity.
Can you admit that?
“He doesn't even understand how sick and depraved he is in saying this. How can people be so clueless?“
He has been subconsciously trained by everything in our society around us, often including family, that white people are better than everybody else and always should be the principle winners in the American Dream. So many religious and “rationalistic”conscious, subconscious, and unconscious strategies of propaganda and myth have been employed by those in power in order to keep the white populace in support of 400 years of the social agenda of dispossession, enslavement, and profiteering from native, black, and brown bodies.
Marshal, Craig, Stan and about half of all of us white peoples, still believe in the propaganda and myths. But he thinks it is Christian faith.
As the guarantee of the American Dream - that white children are ensured of living better their parents - collapses, these people do not choose to follow their conscience and realize the lies. They double down on their corrupt belief and re-channel their guilt as rage. They brought us Reagan. They brought us WBush. As their rage becomes ever more consuming they’ve now brought us Trump, who, fortunately, totally unmasks their racist, misogynist, bigoted motivations of irrational rage.
While they are to be pitied for how the machinery of brutalizing capitalism chews them up just like everyone else, they nonetheless stand in condemnation for their resolve to choose inhumane and twisted hate.
Marshal is exemplary in all the above putrefaction.
Neither Marshal nor Craig will ever get this but the position they take is a kind of gutter version of Nietzsche - whom, though incapable of understanding him, they abhor.
“As Zarathustra — Nietzsche’s mouthpiece in the book — crosses a bridge, he is accosted by ‘cripples and beggars’ (the book was written in the nineteenth century, so excuse the antiquated language). A hunchback (a very common condition in the nineteenth century) tells Zarathustra that for people to be truly convinced of his teaching, he must “cure the blind and make the lame walk.”
Those of us brought up as Christians will see an immediate parallel between what is asked of Zarathustra and the works of Jesus of Nazareth. It is often repeated in the Gospels that people were convinced of Jesus’s teachings when he performed miracles such as healing the sick and the crippled.
Unlike Jesus of Nazareth, Zarathustra refuses to perform miracles. He tells the hunchback that the crippled and blind would learn nothing from being cured. If the blind could see, Zarathustra reasoned, they’d see many bad things in the world and “curse the man who cured them”. His point is that merely curing blindness is not sufficient to cure the soul.
Furthermore, the hunchback is told that “if one takes the hump away from the hunchback, one takes away his spirit.”
This remarkable statement is key to Nietzsche’s Stoicism. Like the ancient stoics before him, Nietzsche believed the obstacle or the burden is the way. Our disadvantages and handicaps, the stoics reason, are to be embraced as necessary. We can turn all that is misfortunate to our advantage.”
Paul was a stoic, Jesus an Epicurean, speaking in general Greek philosophical terms.
Depending on who's doing the counting, there are between 195 and 247 countries/nations in the world. Of those (again, depending on who's counting), 167 still have slavery. In a world of about 7.7 billion people, the top 15 of the slave countries (in terms of most slaves) have a total of over 4 billion people (holding an estimated 31.5 million people in slavery). Again, that's just the population of the top 15 countries where slavery still exists. Thus, 167 countries that still have slavery, it's safe to say that the vast majority of the world disagrees with you on the subject of the morality of slavery.
OF course, I'd never insist that every free person in every one of those 167 countries believe slavery is OK, anymore than I'd insist that every single person in the rest of the world believes it isn't. But your attempt at another Bandwagon fallacy pronouncement fails pretty hard once again, when you'd have a hard time coming close to supporting it. That's pretty sad for the world, I'd say, but the world is a sad place that isn't at all served by people like you speaking for it. Indeed, you make it look worse by supposing you know that the "vast majority" believes as you do only find out it doesn't necessarily...which makes it's fallen state more obvious.
"It's NOT enough to say that slavery is less than desirable."
Sure it is. I don't agree with it. I don't abide it. I oppose it, and I think less of those who would dare enslave anyone. Again, I don't feel the need to posture as outrageously horrified, getting the vapors at the thought of it and condemning any who don't oppose it as strongly as I do. See the problem here, little Danny? It's not the opposition, it's the manner in which you express it, as if by doing so in such a manner as you improves your image as a Christian, while you support and defend the mass murder of innocent, unborn human beings. Color me unimpressed.
So, there's nothing "sick and depraved" about me...certainly not to the extent there is about you and your sock puppet, feo. And to have such as yourselves condescending to me doesn't really have much of an impact on me.
"not a mere inconvenience."
I never said that. I never said anything remotely like that. I protested your demand that I must join you as your panties get all bunched up over it, while you continue to defend that which in my opinion are far worse.
I also questioned your attitude towards it as an alleged Christian who supposedly spent a lifetime studying the Word of God...that you assert there is no condemnation of slavery in Scripture, yet you regard it as a great evil...which is clearly, then, a case of you inventing a rule I must abide, like a Pharisee, while ignoring that which is unambiguously prohibited by God because YOU don't believe it is for you, just like a Pharisee. The absolute irony of this entire episode is lost on you despite your immense love of irony!
And you think I should be embarrassed of myself! I can't tell you what a kick I've gotten out of all of this!!! This is one of the best days I've had in a while in the blogosphere! I'm definitely saving this one!
Marshal flirts with realizing the scope of the humanitarian violence of slavery. But then, being at base a brutalist, he treats it like an issue of fluoridated water. “Hey, I wouldn’t recommend it. I’d advise otherwise. But if those with power want, so be it.”
___
Globally, 65 million girls are not in school. There are 31 million girls of primary school age not in school. Seventeen million of these girls will probably never attend school in their lifetimes. Girls with eight years of education are four times less likely to marry as children. A girl with an extra year of education can earn 20 percent more as an adult. A child born to a mother who can read and write is 50 percent more likely to survive past the age of 5.
So much of the world doesn’t agree with the equality of women. You’re in that party.
I think you romanticize and thrill to these vestiges of human rights abuses.
___
72 countries criminalize homosexual acts. 13 of them apply capital punishment by stoning to death.
That’s 530 million people living with laws that kill anyone caught in a homosexual act.
So much of the world doesn’t agree with individual rights. You’re in that party.
I think you romanticize and thrill to these vestiges of human rights abuses.
___
2 million children and women are held in sexual slavery.
Many places in the world subjugate women and children to male desire of whatever kind. Punishment. Sex. You have only one foot of such a culture yourself.
I don’t think you romanticize this phenomenon of human rights abuse.
But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised that you unwillingly thrill to it.
And Craig whiffs on everything human. Marshal is the one who, how did you put it about Jesus, Craig?, doesn’t get too bothered about any slavery, past or present.
Bizarrely, you attempt to dehumanize the one holding up humane values.
In your corrupt mind you twist reason to comfort your brutality.
And now in Craig's latest, he becomes one lying piece of shit twisting condemnation on Christine Blasey Ford without any basis for his vile opinion.
"we find out that the accusation was a lie."
You found out shit, Craig, you self-deceiving lying motherfucking weasel.
If a sexually assaultive young man is now as an adult about to be put on the Supreme Court by a sex assaultive President, there's a million reasons to speak out. For the victim, yes, keeping him from deciding what can or cannot happen to other women's bodies is EXACTLY a patriotic and moral reason to speak up.
God but you are a brutalizing bastard.
Craig and Marshal are not welcome to comment here as long as they are defending (even faintly) the great scourge of slavery. Craig, you have a question put to you that you MUST answer if you want to comment here.
Craig, you particularly, I need you to tell me that you can condemn slavery as an evil. Don't try to make it complicated. Don't do your typical Dodges about biblical slavery vs American slavery.
I'm talking about one human being owning another human being. It is evil. Can you agree with that?
Further, Marshal has stated and re-confirmed that he's not willing to call slavery evil, only merely "less than desirable..." Can you condemn Marshal's defense of slavery for its own level of milquetoast evil?
“You’re not going to force me to say that chattel slavery is an ungodly terror and clearly a social evil!
It’s just less than ideal!!”
Marshal may well have a low to mid grade Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD or APD) is a personality disorder characterized by a long term pattern of disregard for, or violation of, the rights of others. A low moral sense or conscience is often apparent, as well as a history of crime, legal problems, or impulsive and aggressive behavior.
Craig thinks slavery is a negotiable "problem" where sarcasm indicates his opinion that, surely, reasonable white people can agree to disagree about the degree of problem it is, and just get on with being nice, white people.
Marshal: “I’m not defending slavery. I’m just saying it’s not all that bad.”
Craig: “I’m not defending slavery. I’m just saying that it did provide a roof over one’s head.”
Marshall really should survey those “black friends” he claims to have. Craig too.
Craig claims that the good news isn’t centrally about the poor. In a trite series of posts instrumentalizing corrupt Pharisaical thinking, he wants to say that the good news is made up of two pieces of word, only comes when Christ is gone and only then when worshipped.
But Jesus made clear that he is the good news, not wood. And he brings good need to those whom privileged, prejudiced society thinks are sinners, to those unwanted by the powers.
“The disciples of John reported all these things to him. So John summoned two of his disciples and sent them to the Lord to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” When the men had come to him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?’” Jesus had just then cured many people of diseases, plagues, and evil spirits, and had given sight to many who were blind. And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.”
When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who put on fine clothing and live in luxury are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written,
‘See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’
I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves.)”
Dan, yet more evidence that Craig is locked up in only a shallow Pharisaical attention to his reading of the scripture:
Craig: "Hell, we're talking about someone who doesn't usually capitalize God..."
1. God doesn't speak English.
2. The word, god, is Old English.
3. God doesn't speak Old English, either.
4. God is not god's name.
5. A divine being doesn't have a language because language is finite and imperfect.
6. A divine being doesn't go by a name.
BUT! and here's the kicker...
You know, for people who think the book is sacrosanct Craig and Stan and Marshal can't even read it. And that! is just the beginning of how these guys get stuck in the shallow end:
The greek word for "god", Craig, is NEVER capitalized in the New Testament. In fact, the oldest manuscripts don't capitalize anything. (except for the major uncial manuscripts where only capital letters are used for... every single letter.)
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
(I'm going to love pointing out to Stan that he should have pointed this out to you, Craig. But... uh... your resident bible "expert" doesn't know these things either. I'm laughing.)
And re Craig’s latest gaff: “Religion stress holiness over grace. Irreligion stresses freedom over holiness. Christianity is freedom through Grace that leads to holiness”
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
St Paul thinks you’re wrong, Craig. Paul thinks grace leads to freedom. I’ll go with St Paul.
RE Stan’s latest:
The foundation:
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.”
And in god’s freedom it becomes so much easier and lovely and healthy to follow this:
“He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?”
But, Stan, you keep trying to follow a Judaizing effort of making Christian law. And, as Paul said, as long as you do this you will be condemned by that law.
Christ lives. The Word is alive, near you, in your heart. If you could listen - AND believe, AND follow - your spirit will be free to love and be loved.
Jesus god. The Republicans are engaged in daily moral vandalism (the North Carolina GOP overrode their Governor’s veto while the DEMS were at a 9/11 memorial ).
But Craig is frothing about which possessive determiner to use before “President”?!
What shallow, diversionary corruption.
Post a Comment