Monday, September 30, 2019
Saturday, September 28, 2019
I just saw something on FB that talked about how various statistics are reported affect perception.
For example we quantify how many women were raped, not how many men tape women.
We talk about how many women or girls were harassed, not how many men or boys did the harassing.
We talk about how many women got pregnant, not how many men impregnated them. Personally I think this isn’t in the same category as the others, but I understand the point.
I agree that we need to talk about both sides of those statistics, that it’s important to know how many men are responsible for these behaviors.
My thought/question regards what conclusions we draw from those statistics.
Let’s say that 100 women were raped, yet there were only 30 rapists. Does that change the narrative? I suspect that it’s not a 1:1 ratio. That the men who engage in these horrible behaviors (rose and harassment anyway) probably assault multiple women and that pointing that out might actually minimize the effect of pointing out total tapes/assaults.
I suspect the problem with ascertaining the accurate numbers sought is that there are likely a number of rapes/assaults where the perpetrator goes unidentified.
I agree with not using the stats to make women seem passive, but I don’t think you want people focused on the (possibly) smaller number of perpetrators to the exclusion of the larger number of victims.
For example we quantify how many women were raped, not how many men tape women.
We talk about how many women or girls were harassed, not how many men or boys did the harassing.
We talk about how many women got pregnant, not how many men impregnated them. Personally I think this isn’t in the same category as the others, but I understand the point.
I agree that we need to talk about both sides of those statistics, that it’s important to know how many men are responsible for these behaviors.
My thought/question regards what conclusions we draw from those statistics.
Let’s say that 100 women were raped, yet there were only 30 rapists. Does that change the narrative? I suspect that it’s not a 1:1 ratio. That the men who engage in these horrible behaviors (rose and harassment anyway) probably assault multiple women and that pointing that out might actually minimize the effect of pointing out total tapes/assaults.
I suspect the problem with ascertaining the accurate numbers sought is that there are likely a number of rapes/assaults where the perpetrator goes unidentified.
I agree with not using the stats to make women seem passive, but I don’t think you want people focused on the (possibly) smaller number of perpetrators to the exclusion of the larger number of victims.
Literally
I’m not the first to point this out, but it’s interesting when people who are critical of those who claim to take scripture literally, claim that they are taking a particular scripture literally.
For example, if you’re going to claim that you are taking one of the Gospels “literally”, how do you then take parts of that gospel not literally? It seems as though the individual Gospels don’t lend themselves to being subdivided into literal/not literal.
To be clear, when I refer to taking scripture literally, I mean that we take things as they were intended. For example, a Biblical literalist would argue that parables are literally parables and should be interpreted as such. In other words a literalist approach, acknowledges that figurative language and style is figurative.
Back to the point. If you are going to take the Gospels “literally”, (and as factual history told in a more modern sense), how exactly do you deal with the stuff you can’t “prove”? How do you decide that “demon possessed” equals what we’d call mentally ill? How do you take “gave a blind man his sight”, to mean that Jesus provided some sort of 1st century medical treatment?
I could be wrong, but it seems like applying a presuppositional naturalism to scripture means that you have to assume that the Gospel writers are either lying, stupid, hoodwinked, or brainwashed. But doesn’t that supposition call into question the entirety of their writings?
It ultimately comes down to who Jesus was, and was He trustworthy? Or, are we required to find a naturalistic explanation for certain events?
For example, if you’re going to claim that you are taking one of the Gospels “literally”, how do you then take parts of that gospel not literally? It seems as though the individual Gospels don’t lend themselves to being subdivided into literal/not literal.
To be clear, when I refer to taking scripture literally, I mean that we take things as they were intended. For example, a Biblical literalist would argue that parables are literally parables and should be interpreted as such. In other words a literalist approach, acknowledges that figurative language and style is figurative.
Back to the point. If you are going to take the Gospels “literally”, (and as factual history told in a more modern sense), how exactly do you deal with the stuff you can’t “prove”? How do you decide that “demon possessed” equals what we’d call mentally ill? How do you take “gave a blind man his sight”, to mean that Jesus provided some sort of 1st century medical treatment?
I could be wrong, but it seems like applying a presuppositional naturalism to scripture means that you have to assume that the Gospel writers are either lying, stupid, hoodwinked, or brainwashed. But doesn’t that supposition call into question the entirety of their writings?
It ultimately comes down to who Jesus was, and was He trustworthy? Or, are we required to find a naturalistic explanation for certain events?
Friday, September 27, 2019
I don’t know how we should handle this
We’ve been told for quite a while now that the people who choose not to go through the proper, legal channels to enter the US shouldn’t be punished or deported, but instead should be welcomed.
Well after the uptick in illegal immigrants sexually assaulting minors in a sanctuary county in MD, we see a gentleman who crossed the border illegally who’s been convicted of sexual assault. That’s right, he’s a convicted felon, surely he should be summarily deported, shouldn’t he?
Well after the uptick in illegal immigrants sexually assaulting minors in a sanctuary county in MD, we see a gentleman who crossed the border illegally who’s been convicted of sexual assault. That’s right, he’s a convicted felon, surely he should be summarily deported, shouldn’t he?
If someone said this to Dan,
“How’d you sleep last night? How’s your dream? You mother looked cute. I’d hate for your mother to become yet another victim of gun violence followed by your siblings and...”
“Exactly. You’ll hear the news soon. Just you wait. If i don’t do it soon someone else will for me. Purpose of the tweet to locate them. I’m sure they’ve been waiting to be incited.”
...he’d be apoplectic. But since it was said to a 17 year old, outspoken, black conservative it’ll most likely be ignored.
I seriously doubt Dan would even bother to mention it, let alone criticize the writer.
“Exactly. You’ll hear the news soon. Just you wait. If i don’t do it soon someone else will for me. Purpose of the tweet to locate them. I’m sure they’ve been waiting to be incited.”
...he’d be apoplectic. But since it was said to a 17 year old, outspoken, black conservative it’ll most likely be ignored.
I seriously doubt Dan would even bother to mention it, let alone criticize the writer.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Swimming lessons
“Every religion is giving swimming lessons to drowned men. The techniques vary, but the instructors stay together, safe in the boat. Except one. He alone dives in. He alone submerges. He alone saves.”
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
An unusual perspective
I'm not sure how to take this, but there are certainly some interesting things to consider.
https://winteryknight.com/2019/09/25/does-global-warming-alarmism-cause-mass-shootings-of-immigrants-by-eco-terrorists/
https://winteryknight.com/2019/09/25/does-global-warming-alarmism-cause-mass-shootings-of-immigrants-by-eco-terrorists/
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Lenses
I’ve been told that the only proper way to interpret scripture is to look at it through a “Jesus lens”. That we must interpret the entire OT through the red letters in the NT. But this seems to ignore a couple of things.
1. That Jesus spoke in and through the OT. Jesus, as the second person of the Godhead, is for all intents and purposes speaking the words attributed to YHWH.
Clearly if you deny that Jesus is the the Logos spoken of in John, or that Jesus is the eternally existent second person of the triune God, you won’t agree with this,
2. Very often when Jesus spoke in the red letters, he starts by saying something like “It is written...”, then He proceeds to quote the OT. At His temptation, “It is written...”, His first appearance in the synagogue He quotes Isaiah 61:1. Which raises the question, if Jesus so frequently referenced the OT on matters of importance, is it possible that we should view Jesus through the lens of the OT instead of the other way around?
I’m also curious about Jesus use of Isiah 61:1. If we’re to accept that He meant v.1 in a wooden literal way, does that mean that He was implying that all of chapter 61 should be treated the same way?
If the answer is no, why the arbitrary cut off?
If the answer is yes, then wouldn’t that change Jesus message?
We have to remember that it’s likely that His audience would have known the entire passage and it seems possible that they could have finished the prophecy in their minds.
It just seems odd that in so many important instances Jesus referred back to Jewish scripture, maybe that’s more important than we might think.
1. That Jesus spoke in and through the OT. Jesus, as the second person of the Godhead, is for all intents and purposes speaking the words attributed to YHWH.
Clearly if you deny that Jesus is the the Logos spoken of in John, or that Jesus is the eternally existent second person of the triune God, you won’t agree with this,
2. Very often when Jesus spoke in the red letters, he starts by saying something like “It is written...”, then He proceeds to quote the OT. At His temptation, “It is written...”, His first appearance in the synagogue He quotes Isaiah 61:1. Which raises the question, if Jesus so frequently referenced the OT on matters of importance, is it possible that we should view Jesus through the lens of the OT instead of the other way around?
I’m also curious about Jesus use of Isiah 61:1. If we’re to accept that He meant v.1 in a wooden literal way, does that mean that He was implying that all of chapter 61 should be treated the same way?
If the answer is no, why the arbitrary cut off?
If the answer is yes, then wouldn’t that change Jesus message?
We have to remember that it’s likely that His audience would have known the entire passage and it seems possible that they could have finished the prophecy in their minds.
It just seems odd that in so many important instances Jesus referred back to Jewish scripture, maybe that’s more important than we might think.
Monday, September 23, 2019
Climate protesters
Apparently those folx who think that the end is near because the climate is going to end life as we know it have decided that the effective way to protest is to block traffic in DC. Let’s ignore the fact that, if history is any indication, they’ll leave trash everywhere. Let’s focus on the fact that the most inefficient period for a car with an international combustion engine is when its idling. So, they’ve decided that the best way to save the climate is to force thousands of cars to idle, spewing unnecessarily high levels of exhaust into the air.
Then there’s this take.
“White privilege is not having to work on Monday morning so you can stop people in a majority POC city from getting to their jobs.”
Or this.
“Every left wing protest betrays a total contempt for the working class. These idiots never have any compunction about shutting down traffic and preventing normal people from getting to their jobs so they can feed their families.”
Or
“Notice that they’ll organize to impede peoples ability to work...
“It takes a massive amount of cognitive dissonance to fret that climate change will destroy future generations while at the same time openly advocating for the destruction of future generations through abortion. Can I wave off concerns about climate change by insisting that my carbon emissions are my business and any harm they cause to children isn't my problem? Or does that logic only work for abortion?“
“My carbon, my choice.”
It’s not wrong.
Then there’s this take.
“White privilege is not having to work on Monday morning so you can stop people in a majority POC city from getting to their jobs.”
Or this.
“Every left wing protest betrays a total contempt for the working class. These idiots never have any compunction about shutting down traffic and preventing normal people from getting to their jobs so they can feed their families.”
Or
“Notice that they’ll organize to impede peoples ability to work...
But they won’t organize to clean up 50 tons of trash from the streets like MAGA people did!
They really protest for socialism, not cleaning the environment, otherwise they’d put on some gloves!”
Or
“My carbon, my choice.”
It’s not wrong.
Friday, September 20, 2019
The Iron Range
i saw a CNN story whet they sent a reporter up to the iron range expecting that the DFL stronghold would give them all sorts of great anti Trump material. Yet, it didn’t work as well as they thought. I guess the problem is that people aren’t likely to vote for a party that wants to eliminate the industry they’ve been employed in for years, as opposed to a party that doesn’t want to eliminate their jobs.
I’ve thought for a few years that the DFL has abandoned the blue collar, union members who have unquestioningly voted DFL for decades, to curry favor with more fringe elements of the left.
What I’m wondering is if this shift to the left might inadvertently re elect Trump. What if the rhetoric and positions of the left aren’t as broadly appealing as they think? What if gaining the votes of the environmentalists, loses the votes of the blue collar union types?
I learned in 2016 not to predict elections, but I’m looking forward to seeing how 2020 plays out. I really think that it’s possible that what we’re seeing on the DFL debate stages just might sway enough people like me, as well as enough undecided voters away from the DFL and towards the GOP/Trump.
As always, time will tell.
I’ve thought for a few years that the DFL has abandoned the blue collar, union members who have unquestioningly voted DFL for decades, to curry favor with more fringe elements of the left.
What I’m wondering is if this shift to the left might inadvertently re elect Trump. What if the rhetoric and positions of the left aren’t as broadly appealing as they think? What if gaining the votes of the environmentalists, loses the votes of the blue collar union types?
I learned in 2016 not to predict elections, but I’m looking forward to seeing how 2020 plays out. I really think that it’s possible that what we’re seeing on the DFL debate stages just might sway enough people like me, as well as enough undecided voters away from the DFL and towards the GOP/Trump.
As always, time will tell.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
What in the name of holy shrubbery?
“Today in chapel, we confessed to plants. Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor.
“
What do you confess to the plants in your life?”
It would seem that the seminarians of tomorrow think that confessing to a potted fern is somehow a healthy spiritual practice. If your potential pastor’s resume says he went to Union Seminary, don’t waste your time with an interview.
FYI, even if this isn’t as monumentally stupid as it sounds on Twitter, the fact that someone thought posting it was a good idea is still disqualifying.
A few more problems with the rough draft.
"Then Jesus said to her, “Your
sins are forgiven.”
The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” [Simple living/contrasting Jesus' gospel/way that associates with the poor and marginalized vs the world's or the Pharisee's way]"
Jesus clearly says "Your sins are forgiven." and "Your faith has saved you.".
How does one possible get from "Your sins are forgiven" to You need to live simply? It's a non sequitur, there is literally nothing in this exchange that necessitates or even encourages this conclusion.
Now, a simplistic, woodenly literal, reading of the story that precedes this exchange might lead some to think this is about money, yet where does Jesus mention money to the woman? In fact Jesus commends her for "wasting" expensive perfume by using it to wash His feet. Again, I'd love to see some evidence to support this novel reading of this exchange.
"The Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Again we see Jesus state clearly and plainly that He has "come to call...sinners to repentance." There is no evidence in either the text or the context that demands that this statement be construed as applying to anyone but "sinners". There is certainly nothing that demands that the "healthy/doctor" reference be taken in a woodenly literal sense, yet somehow that's exactly what we see here.
"The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Somehow the possibility that Jesus was referring to Himself as The Son of Man", and that that plus the claim to be "Lord of the Sabbath", as a way of expressing His divinity and that His authority trumps that of the religious leaders, is never even offered as a possibility.
"He replied, “You give them something to eat.” [providing food for the hungry]"
This is a clever bit of bait and switch in two ways. First, it implies that "the hungry" were poor people who had limited or no access to food, as opposed to people who were son engrossed in Jesus teaching that they chose to miss a meal (or meals). Second, given the anti supernatural bias present in other interactions, I suspect that the miraculous nature of the actual feeding would be minimized or explained away were it even addressed. This also addresses the fundamental flaw in "The Kingdom of God is primarily for the poor" construct. If Jesus could have fed thousands of people on certain occasions, then why was He so stingy the rest of the time?
Pointing these problems out should be a great opportunity to take the time to do the broad research needed to do this topic justice.
I pointed out elsewhere that I downloaded a PDF of a book which lists the sayings of Jesus at around 1900, and in it's categorizations doesn't even have a category for "poor and marginalized" or something similar. The questions that raises is, who's wrong?. I'm not making any claims, but from what I've read, the authors of the book have done a lot more research.
The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” [Simple living/contrasting Jesus' gospel/way that associates with the poor and marginalized vs the world's or the Pharisee's way]"
Jesus clearly says "Your sins are forgiven." and "Your faith has saved you.".
How does one possible get from "Your sins are forgiven" to You need to live simply? It's a non sequitur, there is literally nothing in this exchange that necessitates or even encourages this conclusion.
Now, a simplistic, woodenly literal, reading of the story that precedes this exchange might lead some to think this is about money, yet where does Jesus mention money to the woman? In fact Jesus commends her for "wasting" expensive perfume by using it to wash His feet. Again, I'd love to see some evidence to support this novel reading of this exchange.
"The Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Again we see Jesus state clearly and plainly that He has "come to call...sinners to repentance." There is no evidence in either the text or the context that demands that this statement be construed as applying to anyone but "sinners". There is certainly nothing that demands that the "healthy/doctor" reference be taken in a woodenly literal sense, yet somehow that's exactly what we see here.
"The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Somehow the possibility that Jesus was referring to Himself as The Son of Man", and that that plus the claim to be "Lord of the Sabbath", as a way of expressing His divinity and that His authority trumps that of the religious leaders, is never even offered as a possibility.
"He replied, “You give them something to eat.” [providing food for the hungry]"
This is a clever bit of bait and switch in two ways. First, it implies that "the hungry" were poor people who had limited or no access to food, as opposed to people who were son engrossed in Jesus teaching that they chose to miss a meal (or meals). Second, given the anti supernatural bias present in other interactions, I suspect that the miraculous nature of the actual feeding would be minimized or explained away were it even addressed. This also addresses the fundamental flaw in "The Kingdom of God is primarily for the poor" construct. If Jesus could have fed thousands of people on certain occasions, then why was He so stingy the rest of the time?
Pointing these problems out should be a great opportunity to take the time to do the broad research needed to do this topic justice.
I pointed out elsewhere that I downloaded a PDF of a book which lists the sayings of Jesus at around 1900, and in it's categorizations doesn't even have a category for "poor and marginalized" or something similar. The questions that raises is, who's wrong?. I'm not making any claims, but from what I've read, the authors of the book have done a lot more research.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
I'll leave this here
https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/does-the-old-testament-endorse-slavery-an-overview-paul-copan/
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
It’s things like this
“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)?”
In the absence of anything else, it’s reasonable to believe that Dan’s view of the gospel is that “salvation” is primarily and centrally related to issues of “wealth, poverty, and oppression”. So it seems that the shorthand references that have been used aren’t all that far off.
When I have time and a computer, I’ll move all the comments from the other thread. It’ll eliminate the distractions from the other thread. Until, do so I’ll be leaving comments in moderation so as to preserve the context.
In the absence of anything else, it’s reasonable to believe that Dan’s view of the gospel is that “salvation” is primarily and centrally related to issues of “wealth, poverty, and oppression”. So it seems that the shorthand references that have been used aren’t all that far off.
When I have time and a computer, I’ll move all the comments from the other thread. It’ll eliminate the distractions from the other thread. Until, do so I’ll be leaving comments in moderation so as to preserve the context.
Monday, September 16, 2019
A target rich environment
Dan has just posted a rough draft of his effort to categorize the saying of Jesus. He started with Luke, which seems strange because it's not the oldest, it's not the first, but I'm sure he had some really good reasons to do so.
As much as I'd like to copy the entire thing and dig into it, that is just too much of a task. I do want to focus on one part of this rough draft and point out some concerns, and suggest that if I can find this many issues in one small section, that it's reasonable to suspect that the rest of the effort might rasie similar issues.
I'm not going to copy the extensive color code system, when this one line will suffice.
"Jesus' words that are directly about wealth and/or poverty in Bright Green."
This section, while short opens up lots of issues.
"The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’” [simple living, reliance upon God]"
I'll start with the obvious. Satan, doesn't offer Jesus bread in order to satisfy His physical hunger, Satan attempts to taunt Jesus into transforming stones into bread. Jesus is being asked to use His power over the physical realm to engage in an essentially selfish act. Let's be clear, if this was merely the offer of bread, what's the big deal? How is that temptation? But to try to taunt Jesus into an act of selfishness, that's a whole other level, or so it seems to me.
This raises a series of sub questions, that seem appropriate here.
Is the text referring to a literal Satan and a literal Jesus?
Does Jesus actually have the ability/power to transform stones into bread?"
Do these two actually literally see "all the kingdoms of the world" and ascend to the highest point of the literal temple?
Those asked, back to the text.
Jesus answers "It is written...". Where is it written? Why is the fact that it is written important? Why doesn't Jesus just say "I'm not hungry."?
The answer is, it's written in Deuteronomy 8:3.
" And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."
This text also raises questions.
If God is full of concern for those who hunger, why would He cause His people hunger? The text suggests that He does so to prove a point. But isn't that cruel? Or is the point being made important enough to justify something that seems extreme in order to make the point?
Back to Luke, Dan writes, "Other translations do not include that line in Luke, because, the translators say, the oldest and most reliable texts do not include the line."
Clearly the first problem is that Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy, and as such it seems reasonable that His listeners would have been familiar with the entire verse. The reality is that the "older text", Deuteronomy, does include those words. So, more questions.
Was Jesus quoting Deuteronomy?
If so, then why?
Or, was Jesus ignorant of the Deuteronomy text?
Now this from Dan.
" I am just embracing a common sense and fairly literal read on a text. For instance, in the story about the temptation of Jesus, supposedly Satan is offering Jesus literal bread to take care of his little hunger."
Yet the literal text does not literally say that. It literally says "...tell this stone to become bread...", which is literally different from Dan's characterization.
Again, from Dan.
"For instance, let's just take the "humans should not live by bread alone," text. I'm saying that the teaching there is that we should place our trust in God and not wealth. The point is Simplicity, and relying upon God and not wealth. Do you think that's NOT the point of that particular part of the text?"
Yet nowhere in the text is that either explicit or implicit. Jesus is asked to "prove" that He is "the Son of God", that's the context. To simply reduce it to Jesus was hungry, ignores both the text and the context.
No, I do not think that the point of the story has anything to do with material wealth. However, I'm not the one making sweeping claims about the intended content of Jesus words. What i think isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not your take lines up with what the author intended and what Jesus intended.
"I would rather say that the whole story about the temptation is about relying upon God and not wealth or power. This is Central to the teaching of Grace as found throughout Jesus teachings. Do you disagree?"
I really don't care what you "would rather say", that really has little or no impact on the reality of the text. It's clear that you "would rather say" many things that don;t line up with either the plain meaning of the text, or with much of the commentaries written about the text. This seems to be exactly your point. It's all about what you "would rather" things mean than about finding out what they actually mean.
I'll return to an earlier quite from Dan. "...Other translations do not include that line in Luke,". I'll note here that his lack of noting what translation(s) he's using is potentially problematic in multiple ways. I'll also ignore the fact that the implication is that the Luke version is superior to Matthew. But I'll leave that aside and instead look at some actual other translations of the passage in Luke.
KJV21
As much as I'd like to copy the entire thing and dig into it, that is just too much of a task. I do want to focus on one part of this rough draft and point out some concerns, and suggest that if I can find this many issues in one small section, that it's reasonable to suspect that the rest of the effort might rasie similar issues.
I'm not going to copy the extensive color code system, when this one line will suffice.
"Jesus' words that are directly about wealth and/or poverty in Bright Green."
This section, while short opens up lots of issues.
"The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become bread.”
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’” [simple living, reliance upon God]"
I'll start with the obvious. Satan, doesn't offer Jesus bread in order to satisfy His physical hunger, Satan attempts to taunt Jesus into transforming stones into bread. Jesus is being asked to use His power over the physical realm to engage in an essentially selfish act. Let's be clear, if this was merely the offer of bread, what's the big deal? How is that temptation? But to try to taunt Jesus into an act of selfishness, that's a whole other level, or so it seems to me.
This raises a series of sub questions, that seem appropriate here.
Is the text referring to a literal Satan and a literal Jesus?
Does Jesus actually have the ability/power to transform stones into bread?"
Do these two actually literally see "all the kingdoms of the world" and ascend to the highest point of the literal temple?
Those asked, back to the text.
Jesus answers "It is written...". Where is it written? Why is the fact that it is written important? Why doesn't Jesus just say "I'm not hungry."?
The answer is, it's written in Deuteronomy 8:3.
" And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."
This text also raises questions.
If God is full of concern for those who hunger, why would He cause His people hunger? The text suggests that He does so to prove a point. But isn't that cruel? Or is the point being made important enough to justify something that seems extreme in order to make the point?
Back to Luke, Dan writes, "Other translations do not include that line in Luke, because, the translators say, the oldest and most reliable texts do not include the line."
Clearly the first problem is that Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy, and as such it seems reasonable that His listeners would have been familiar with the entire verse. The reality is that the "older text", Deuteronomy, does include those words. So, more questions.
Was Jesus quoting Deuteronomy?
If so, then why?
Or, was Jesus ignorant of the Deuteronomy text?
Now this from Dan.
" I am just embracing a common sense and fairly literal read on a text. For instance, in the story about the temptation of Jesus, supposedly Satan is offering Jesus literal bread to take care of his little hunger."
Yet the literal text does not literally say that. It literally says "...tell this stone to become bread...", which is literally different from Dan's characterization.
Again, from Dan.
"For instance, let's just take the "humans should not live by bread alone," text. I'm saying that the teaching there is that we should place our trust in God and not wealth. The point is Simplicity, and relying upon God and not wealth. Do you think that's NOT the point of that particular part of the text?"
Yet nowhere in the text is that either explicit or implicit. Jesus is asked to "prove" that He is "the Son of God", that's the context. To simply reduce it to Jesus was hungry, ignores both the text and the context.
No, I do not think that the point of the story has anything to do with material wealth. However, I'm not the one making sweeping claims about the intended content of Jesus words. What i think isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not your take lines up with what the author intended and what Jesus intended.
"I would rather say that the whole story about the temptation is about relying upon God and not wealth or power. This is Central to the teaching of Grace as found throughout Jesus teachings. Do you disagree?"
I really don't care what you "would rather say", that really has little or no impact on the reality of the text. It's clear that you "would rather say" many things that don;t line up with either the plain meaning of the text, or with much of the commentaries written about the text. This seems to be exactly your point. It's all about what you "would rather" things mean than about finding out what they actually mean.
I'll return to an earlier quite from Dan. "...Other translations do not include that line in Luke,". I'll note here that his lack of noting what translation(s) he's using is potentially problematic in multiple ways. I'll also ignore the fact that the implication is that the Luke version is superior to Matthew. But I'll leave that aside and instead look at some actual other translations of the passage in Luke.
KJV21
And Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”
And Jesus answered unto him, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.
Jesus replied to him, “It is written and forever remains written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus replied to him, It is written, Man shall not live and be sustained by (on) bread alone but by every word and expression of God.
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
But Jesus answered him, “It is written: Man must not live on bread alone.”
Jesus replied, “It’s written, People won’t live only by bread.”
Yeshua answered him, “The Tanakh says, ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, “The Scriptures say, ‘No one can live only on food.’”
And Jesus answered unto him saying, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
And Jesus responded to him, “It has been written [in Deut 8:3] that ‘Mankind shall not live on bread alone’”.
And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Jesus answered, “The Scriptures say, ‘It is not just bread that keeps people alive.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, “It is written in the Scriptures: ‘A person does not live on bread alone [Deut. 8:3].’”
But Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread only, but by every word of God.
Jesus answered him, “Scripture says, ‘A person cannot live on bread alone.’”
But Jesus answered, “The scripture says, ‘Human beings cannot live on bread alone.’”
But Jesus answered him, “It is written: Man must not live on bread alone.”
Jesus answered, “It is written in the Scriptures: ‘A person does not live only by eating bread.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One must not live on bread alone, but on every word of God.’”
Jesus answered, “The scripture says, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God’.”
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
And Jesus replied to him, “It is written, ‘Man will not live on bread alone.’”
But Jesus replied, “It is written in the Scriptures, ‘Other things in life are much more important than bread!’”
Jesus answered by quoting Deuteronomy: “It takes more than bread to really live.”
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”
And Jesus answered him, · “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’” ·
Yeshua answered him, “Scripture says, ‘A person cannot live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, “It is written in the Scriptures: ‘A person does not live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, “It is written, ‘Man must not live only on bread.’ ” (Deuteronomy 8:3)
Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone.’”
Jesus answered, ‘It is written: “Man shall not live on bread alone.”’
But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’ ”
Jesus said to him, “It is written, ‘Man is not to live by bread alone.’”
But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”
Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, “One does not live by bread alone.”’
Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, “One does not live by bread alone.”’
Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”
‘It is written,’ replied Jesus, ‘ “It takes more than bread to keep you alive.” ’
And
Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach answered Hasatan, It has been written, LO AL
HALECHEM LVADOH YCHE-YEH HAADAM, (Not by bread alone will man live Dt
8:3).
Jesus
replied, “I will not! For it is written in the Scriptures, ‘Life does
not come only from eating bread but from God. Life flows from every
revelation from his mouth.’”
But Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread only, but by every word of God.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
Yeshua answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
Jesus: It is written in the Hebrew Scriptures, “People need more than bread to live.”
Jesus answered him, saying, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’”Deuteronomy 8:3
Jesus answered him, `The holy writings say, "Man cannot live on bread only." '
And Jesus answered to him, It is written, That a man liveth not in bread alone, but in every word of God.
And Jesus answered him, saying, `It hath been written, that, not on bread only shall man live, but on every saying of God.'
I could have cherry picked out the ones that agree with Dan, but didn't because the fact that the totality of his comment is that only the KJV uses the second phrase, is gloriously proven false. Of course, the apparent fact the He is quoting Deuteronomy probably makes the second phrase redundant.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
The text for today
1 Peter 2 was the text for today and it raised a few thoughts.
I don’t understand how anyone can read the text and conclude anything other that that God chooses those who will follow Him.
There is no hint at all that His choices are based on anyone’s material condition.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that Peter either got this wrong, misunderstood, or just didn’t care to relate Jesus’ teachings accurately.
The interim pastor, who preached, is too cowardly to tackle the text head on.
I don’t understand how anyone can read the text and conclude anything other that that God chooses those who will follow Him.
There is no hint at all that His choices are based on anyone’s material condition.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that Peter either got this wrong, misunderstood, or just didn’t care to relate Jesus’ teachings accurately.
The interim pastor, who preached, is too cowardly to tackle the text head on.
Friday, September 13, 2019
If...
"If you have really handed yourself over to Him, it must follow that you are trying to obey Him...Not hoping to get to Heaven as a reward for your actions, but inevitably wanting to act in a certain way because a first faint gleam of Heaven is already inside you." #CSLewis
Thursday, September 12, 2019
“Your President”
I find this obsession with labeling Trump as “your president” laughably pathetic. I have precisely the same relationship with Trump that I had with P-BO. I didn’t support or vote for either of them during the election cycles, but once they were sworn in, I supported actions or policies I agreed with, and criticized the actions I didn’t.
The simple fact is that no matter who sits in the office and what we think of them, they aren’t “yours or mine”, they are the president.
The simple fact is that no matter who sits in the office and what we think of them, they aren’t “yours or mine”, they are the president.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Rice
I was watching an interview with Condi Rice on NBC this morning, and couldn’t help but wondering why she isn’t and hasn’t been a presidential candidate.
Then I remembered how African Americans and women are treated when the do anything but toe the liberal line.
Then I remembered how African Americans and women are treated when the do anything but toe the liberal line.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Untitled
“Religion stress holiness over grace. Irreligion stresses freedom over holiness. Christianity is freedom through Grace that leads to holiness”
TG4
“The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus, who died for our sins and rose again according to the Scriptures, has been enthroned as the true Lord of the world. When this gospel is preached, God calls people to salvation, out of sheer grace, leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as the risen Lord.” – Christianity Today, June 2009
“The whole Christian gospel could be summed up in this point: that when the living God looks at us, at every baptized and believing Christian, he says to us what he said to Jesus on [the day of his baptism]. He sees us, not as we are in ourselves, but as we are in Jesus Christ.” – Mark for Everyone, pg. 4.
“The gospel itself refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is the one, true and only Lord of the world.” – from “Paul in Different Perspectives: Lecture 1””
“The whole Christian gospel could be summed up in this point: that when the living God looks at us, at every baptized and believing Christian, he says to us what he said to Jesus on [the day of his baptism]. He sees us, not as we are in ourselves, but as we are in Jesus Christ.” – Mark for Everyone, pg. 4.”
“The gospel itself refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is the one, true and only Lord of the world.” – from “Paul in Different Perspectives: Lecture 1”
“The idea of ‘good news,’ for which an older English word is ‘gospel,’ had two principal meanings for first-century Jews. First, with roots in Isaiah, it mean the news of YHWH’s long-awaited victory over evil and rescue of his people. Second, it was used in the Roman world of the accession, or birthday, of the emperor. Since for Jesus and Paul the announcement.”
“And in the middle of that, of course, it’s good news for you and me. But that’s the derivative from, or the corollary of the good news which is a message about Jesus that has a second-order effect on me and you and us. But the gospel is not itself about you are this sort of a person and this can happen to you. That’s the result of the gospel rather than the gospel itself.
It’s very clear in Romans. Romans 1:3-4: This is the gospel. It’s the message about Jesus Christ descended from David, designated Son of God in power, and then Romans 1:16-17 which says very clearly: “I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation.” That is, salvation is the result of the gospel, not the center of the gospel itself.”
NT Wright
TG3
“The Gospel of Jesus Christ is news, good news: the best and most important news that any human being ever hears.
This Gospel declares the only way to know God in peace, love, and joy is through the reconciling death of Jesus Christ the risen Lord.
This Gospel is the central message of the Holy Scriptures, and is the true key to understanding them.
This Gospel identifies Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, as the Son of God and God the Son, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, whose incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension fulfilled the Father’s saving will. His death for sins and his resurrection from the dead were promised beforehand by the prophets and attested by eyewitnesses. In God’s own time and in God’s own way, Jesus Christ shall return as glorious Lord and Judge of all (1 Thess. 4:13-18; Matt. 25:31-32). He is now giving the Holy Spirit from the Father to all those who are truly his. The three Persons of the Trinity thus combine in the work of saving sinners.
This Gospel sets forth Jesus Christ as the living Savior, Master, Life, and Hope of all who put their trust in him. It tells us that the eternal destiny of all people depends on whether they are savingly related to Jesus Christ.
This Gospel is the only Gospel: there is no other; and to change its substance is to pervert and indeed destroy it. This Gospel is so simple that small children can understand it, and it is so profound that studies by the wisest theologians will never exhaust its riches.
All Christians are called to unity in love and unity in truth. As evangelicals who derive our very name from the Gospel, we celebrate this great good news of God’s saving work in Jesus Christ as the true bond of Christian unity, whether among organized churches and denominations or in the many transdenominational co operative enterprises of Christians together.
The Bible declares that all who truly trust in Christ and his Gospel are sons and daughters of God through grace, and hence are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
All who are justified experience reconciliation with the Father, full remission of sins, transition from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, the reality of being a new creature in Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. They enjoy access to the Father with all the peace and joy that this brings.
The Gospel requires of all believers worship, which means constant praise and giving of thanks to God, submission to all that he has revealed in his written word, prayerful dependence on him, and vigilance lest his truth be even inadvertently compromised or obscured.
To share the joy and hope of this Gospel is a supreme privilege. It is also an abiding obligation, for the Great Commission of Jesus Christ still stands: proclaim the Gospel everywhere, he said, teaching, baptizing, and making disciples.”
This Gospel declares the only way to know God in peace, love, and joy is through the reconciling death of Jesus Christ the risen Lord.
This Gospel is the central message of the Holy Scriptures, and is the true key to understanding them.
This Gospel identifies Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel, as the Son of God and God the Son, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, whose incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension fulfilled the Father’s saving will. His death for sins and his resurrection from the dead were promised beforehand by the prophets and attested by eyewitnesses. In God’s own time and in God’s own way, Jesus Christ shall return as glorious Lord and Judge of all (1 Thess. 4:13-18; Matt. 25:31-32). He is now giving the Holy Spirit from the Father to all those who are truly his. The three Persons of the Trinity thus combine in the work of saving sinners.
This Gospel sets forth Jesus Christ as the living Savior, Master, Life, and Hope of all who put their trust in him. It tells us that the eternal destiny of all people depends on whether they are savingly related to Jesus Christ.
This Gospel is the only Gospel: there is no other; and to change its substance is to pervert and indeed destroy it. This Gospel is so simple that small children can understand it, and it is so profound that studies by the wisest theologians will never exhaust its riches.
All Christians are called to unity in love and unity in truth. As evangelicals who derive our very name from the Gospel, we celebrate this great good news of God’s saving work in Jesus Christ as the true bond of Christian unity, whether among organized churches and denominations or in the many transdenominational co operative enterprises of Christians together.
The Bible declares that all who truly trust in Christ and his Gospel are sons and daughters of God through grace, and hence are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
All who are justified experience reconciliation with the Father, full remission of sins, transition from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, the reality of being a new creature in Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. They enjoy access to the Father with all the peace and joy that this brings.
The Gospel requires of all believers worship, which means constant praise and giving of thanks to God, submission to all that he has revealed in his written word, prayerful dependence on him, and vigilance lest his truth be even inadvertently compromised or obscured.
To share the joy and hope of this Gospel is a supreme privilege. It is also an abiding obligation, for the Great Commission of Jesus Christ still stands: proclaim the Gospel everywhere, he said, teaching, baptizing, and making disciples.”
Ligonier
TG2
“The gospel is good news—the good news of what God has done in Jesus Christ.
The Bible depicts human beings, all human beings everywhere, as in revolt against God, and therefore under his judgment. But although God stands over against us in judgment because of our sin, quite amazingly he stands over against us in love, because he is that kind of God—and the gospel is the good news of what God, in love, has done in Jesus Christ, especially in Jesus’s cross and resurrection, to deal with our sin and to reconcile us to himself.
Christ bore our sin on the cross. He bore the penalty, turned aside God’s judgment, God’s wrath, from us, and cancelled sin. The brokenness of our lives he restores; the shattered relationships he rebuilds in the context of the church; the new life that we human beings find in Christ is granted out of the sheer grace of God. It is received by faith as we repent of our sins and turn to Jesus. We confess him as Lord, and bow to him joyfully.”
The Gospel 1
“In Christianity, the gospel (Greek: εὐαγγέλιον, translit. euangélion; Old English: gōdspel; Latin: ēvangelium Latin pronunciation: [e.vanˈd͡ʒeː.li.um]), or the Good News, is the news of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15). The message of good news is described as a narrative in the four canonical gospels.
The message of good news is described as theology in many of the New Testament letters. It relates to the saving acts of God due to the work of Jesus on the cross and Jesus' resurrection from the dead which bring reconciliation ("atonement") between people and God. The apostle Paul's gospel is of Jesus's death on the cross and resurrection to restore people's relationship with God. It may also include the descent of the Holy Spirit upon believers and the second coming of Jesus. Paul gave the following summary (translated into English) of this good news (gospel) in one of his letters to Christians in the city of Corinth: Christian theology describes the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ not as a new concept, but one that has been foretold throughout the Old Testament and was prophetically preached even at the time of the fall of man as contained in Genesis 3:14–15,[1] which has been called the "Proto-Evangelion" or "Proto-Gospel".[2][3][4][5]”
Wikipedia
I think we can agree that Wikipedia is not necessarily a hotbed of extremely conservative Christian theology.
Sunday, September 8, 2019
I saw something
I was driving around today and saw a display of doors painted in the colors of the rainbow stating that “God’s door is open to all.”, and then I saw “.,.Realm of God being a welcoming place of grace for all”.
Clearly the problem with both of these is the word “all”. Unless both sentences use the word “all” to mean something other than what “all” usually means, we have people advocating that God’s door is open to and God’s Realm (I love the dodging of the more common term “kingdom), welcoming to people like Donald Trump, Adolph Hitler and everyone else encompassed by the term “all”.
This is something that I’ve seen before. When we see the rubric “marriage equity for all”, and drill down, we find that “all” really means “some”.
This is an example of wanting to seem more inclusive than one really is,
Clearly the problem with both of these is the word “all”. Unless both sentences use the word “all” to mean something other than what “all” usually means, we have people advocating that God’s door is open to and God’s Realm (I love the dodging of the more common term “kingdom), welcoming to people like Donald Trump, Adolph Hitler and everyone else encompassed by the term “all”.
This is something that I’ve seen before. When we see the rubric “marriage equity for all”, and drill down, we find that “all” really means “some”.
This is an example of wanting to seem more inclusive than one really is,
We’re told...
..,that the only way to determine anything about Jesus is to look at His words to the exclusion of anything else. Or to look at anything other than Jesus words (and only in the Gospels) as secondary and of lesser value.
Yet we have extensive writings by Peter, James and John who were arguably the three people closest to Jesus during His earthly ministry.
This raises some questions when we look at what those sources say about why Jesus came.
When they say things that “disagree” with the “SJ” interpretation of why Jesus came, are they wrong?
Did they just not pay attention?
Were they too stupid to figure out the right answer?
Did they not pay attention?
Were they just determined to make up their own gospel, despite spending 3 years in close proximity to Jesus?
Did they decide to ignore Jesus?
Again I’ll probably add more later.
Yet we have extensive writings by Peter, James and John who were arguably the three people closest to Jesus during His earthly ministry.
This raises some questions when we look at what those sources say about why Jesus came.
When they say things that “disagree” with the “SJ” interpretation of why Jesus came, are they wrong?
Did they just not pay attention?
Were they too stupid to figure out the right answer?
Did they not pay attention?
Were they just determined to make up their own gospel, despite spending 3 years in close proximity to Jesus?
Did they decide to ignore Jesus?
Again I’ll probably add more later.
If?
If we reduce the gospel to the one dimensional amelioration of poverty, hunger, and sickness then we seemingly set a standard that is fraught with potential problems.
1. It encourages a focus on charity which is being shown to be harmful to the recipients in many cases.
2. It puts the focus on; the helper, the helped, the government, and possibly God in that order?
3. It puts the focus on competition for who can do the most “good works”.
4. It completely ignores the spiritual in favor of the physical.
5. It’s attempting to achieve an unachievable objective.
6. Is it better to gain a subsistence level objective than to lose one’s soul?
7. It places the helper in a position of power over the helped?
8. It’s following a model that neither Jesus, nor the early church followed.
I’ll probably add to this as other things occur to me.
1. It encourages a focus on charity which is being shown to be harmful to the recipients in many cases.
2. It puts the focus on; the helper, the helped, the government, and possibly God in that order?
3. It puts the focus on competition for who can do the most “good works”.
4. It completely ignores the spiritual in favor of the physical.
5. It’s attempting to achieve an unachievable objective.
6. Is it better to gain a subsistence level objective than to lose one’s soul?
7. It places the helper in a position of power over the helped?
8. It’s following a model that neither Jesus, nor the early church followed.
I’ll probably add to this as other things occur to me.
Friday, September 6, 2019
I'm curious
When we talk about slavery in the history of the US, we never seem to be able to extend the responsibility/blame to the UK or to those Africans who captured and sold their own in the first place. Certainly not intending to absolve anyone of an appropriate degree of responsibility, but just wondering why we ignore so much in order to blame America.
Remember
Remember when a SCOTUS nominee was accused of sexual assault with very little documentation or evidence? Then remember when a bunch of folx decided that the mere presence of this allegation was sufficient to prevent his confirmation and these same folx spared no effort to portray him as all sorts of horrible things?
Well, now we find out that the accusation was a lie.
Should I be holding my breath waiting for the apologies and retractions?
I doubt it.
Remember when the videos came out showing PP employees admitting that they manipulated abortion procedures to maximize salable body parts? Looks like court testimony is suggesting that the accusations were true and that the videos were accurate.
Yet folx on the left are more upset by chicken sandwiches than by this news.
Slavery is bad, but this doesn’t even get a negative comment.
Well, now we find out that the accusation was a lie.
Should I be holding my breath waiting for the apologies and retractions?
I doubt it.
Remember when the videos came out showing PP employees admitting that they manipulated abortion procedures to maximize salable body parts? Looks like court testimony is suggesting that the accusations were true and that the videos were accurate.
Yet folx on the left are more upset by chicken sandwiches than by this news.
Slavery is bad, but this doesn’t even get a negative comment.
Thursday, September 5, 2019
Hurricane relief
As we come to grips with the destruction in the Bahamas, I’m struck by two things.
1. The quick response by the cruise lines to commit resources both financial and otherwise to the Bahamas.
2. The outpouring of private citizens who own boats that can make the run from FL. Just like the rednecks showed up with bass boats when Houston flooded, the boat owners in FL are on the front lines in bringing in supplies.
I’m sure that there will be plenty more from all sorts of entities before it’s all over, but seeing people and companies taking the lead is somehow gratifying.
1. The quick response by the cruise lines to commit resources both financial and otherwise to the Bahamas.
2. The outpouring of private citizens who own boats that can make the run from FL. Just like the rednecks showed up with bass boats when Houston flooded, the boat owners in FL are on the front lines in bringing in supplies.
I’m sure that there will be plenty more from all sorts of entities before it’s all over, but seeing people and companies taking the lead is somehow gratifying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)