I'm sensing a trend with Dan. He tends to artificially limit the sample size of what he offers for "proof" of something as if cherry picking a small sample somehow erases the entirety of his posts and comments.
For example "how it's literally not found in Jesus' sermons", is an excellent example of manipulating "data". That Dan arbitrarily excludes anything Jesus might have said that is not part of a "sermon" from consideration seems like imposing arbitrary limits on how Jesus communicated. For example, the entire Upper Room discourse is simply excluded from consideration because it doesn't meet Dan's definition of a sermon. Yet this example of Jesus' spending time giving final instructions to those who will carry on His ministry somehow don't count when it comes to Jesus and PSA. That Jesus literally instituted the practice of Communion, which is literally a graphic representation of His body broken and His blood poured out for forgiveness of Sin, must be ignored when rehearsing PSA. Why must we do this? Because Dan said so. Because he's decreed that it's not ALL of the red letters that matter, it's only a percentage that matter when it comes to support for PSA. Is this arbitrary, yes. Is excluding some of Jesus' words and teachings from consideration when it comes to this topic bizarre, also yes.
Much like the claims about political violence, it is simply foolish to make definitive statements about which side commits more "political violence" when so much left wing violence is excluded, and when violence that has no discernible political motivation is somehow added to the "right wing" side of things. As I've posted about already, if we are going to have this conversation, we need accurate data that includes every bit of political violence since 1965-68.
Why am I proposing 1965-68 as the cut off point? Good question. I'd argue that the 1960s were the beginning of the modern political era and that before that things were significantly different. Personally, I would exclude the violence around the Civil Rights movement for two reasons. 1. It was as much or more racial as political. 2. So much of that violence was engaged in by democrats that it is difficult to definitively categorize right/left in the current sense of things. I think that we can agree that the violence around racial issues was deplorable no matter which side did it. I also think that arguing about whether the racial violence was left or right is a waste of time, because it's not cut and dried.
Finally, I would propose that we include threats of violence in the dataset as well, when those threats are intended to achieve a political purpose.
IMO, having someone compile an accurate list of all political violence/threats of violence between 1965-2025, and assigning those events to right/left when specific, definitive, evidence is available would be extremely helpful. For those events where no specific motivation is obvious, they should be categorized as "unknown".
So much of this discussion comes down to those on the left, using incomplete data, claiming that it's massively tilted to the right and "well they do it..." as justification, with those on the right wondering why J6 is included, but none of the riots/occupations between 1992-2025 are not included. Or why so many on the left are posting a graph of "political murders" (with serious methodology questions) and pretending that it measures "political violence".
I know this is repetitive, but IMO it is important enough to repeat. When such important claims are being made and repeated, it seems really vital that all of the data is included in the dataset. Artificially or arbitrarily limiting the dataset is simply bad (social) science.
31 comments:
Craig, missing the point, said...
"That Dan arbitrarily excludes anything Jesus might have said that is not part of a "sermon" from consideration seems like imposing arbitrary limits on how Jesus communicated."
Jesus begins his ministry by clearly stating that he'd come to preach good news to the poor. Right?
Now, for the humans who theorize Good News = PSA, then a reasonable question to ask is:
Fine, fortunately, we have many writings recording Jesus' teachings and sermons to the poor and masses. Just
1. Cite the public sermon/teaching passages that speak to/directly teach PSA.
OR, since that happens zero times...
2. Simply admit that there are NO sermons where Jesus teaches PSA to the poor.
That's just basic Logic 101.
The claim is not publicly supported by Jesus' actual sermons. AND, it's a rational limited search, NOT arbitrary exclusion.
If someone says that there wooden corkscrew within a car's engine, it's a rational limitation to ask, Where IN THE ENGINE are these wood corkscrew?
How is that not simply rational?
Now, you might choose to theorize, For unknown reasons, Jesus left out PSA from all his sermons, but that theory IS the good news, nonetheless...
But you have to admit it's a rational starting point. Right?
Well, it's gratifying when Dan demonstrates the accuracy of a point I've made so well and so promptly. He's arbitrarily chosen to eiesgete ONE VERSE and decided because he "Reason" told him so, that that ONE VERSE establishes a two tiered way to look at Jesus' teaching. That anything NOT taught in a "Sermon" specifically a "Sermon...to the poor." cannot ever be used as support for Jesus communicating significant elements of what would later be called PSA. The Upper Room discourse, out because it's not a "sermon".
What an impressive example of arbitrarily deciding what teachings of Jesus are more valid based solely off of what Dan's Reason tells him.
One qick Ghat GPT prompt got me this.
1. Jesus Came to Give His Life as a Ransom — Mark 10:45
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
(Mark 10:45)
PSA Elements:
Substitution: "For many" implies he dies in the place of others.
Penalty-bearing: The word “ransom” (Greek: lutron) implies a payment to release from bondage — often understood as bondage to sin, death, or divine justice.
Jesus' life is the payment to liberate others, strongly implying a substitutionary act with a cost.
🔹 2. The Good Shepherd Lays Down His Life for the Sheep — John 10:11, 15
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”
(John 10:11)
“Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.”
(John 10:15)
PSA Elements:
Voluntary substitution: Jesus lays down his life for (Greek: huper) the sheep — meaning "on behalf of" or "in place of."
Covenantal context: Shepherd imagery reflects Ezekiel 34 and sacrificial overtones.
The death is intentional and purposeful — a protective death that benefits the flock.
🔹 3. This Is My Body Given for You / Blood Poured Out — Luke 22:19–20
“This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
(Luke 22:19–20)
PSA Elements:
Sacrificial language: "Given for you" and "poured out" reflect temple sacrifice terminology.
For you again carries substitutionary meaning.
The idea of a covenant sealed with blood harkens back to Exodus 24, implying that Jesus’ blood inaugurates a new covenant through sacrificial death.
🔹 4. The Cup of God’s Wrath — Matthew 26:39
“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
(Matthew 26:39)
PSA Elements:
"Cup" is a frequent Old Testament metaphor for divine wrath or judgment (see Ps 75:8, Isa 51:17, Jer 25:15).
Jesus anticipates bearing this cup, suggesting he is about to absorb divine judgment on behalf of others.
Though not explicit, many theologians argue that Jesus sees himself drinking the cup of wrath that sinners deserve.
🔹 5. Woes and Warnings: Judgment Must Fall — Matthew 23
While not directly PSA, Jesus preaches divine justice and judgment against sin:
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”
(Matthew 23:33)
PSA Context:
Jesus affirms that judgment is real, deserved, and inescapable without divine intervention.
The strong language of judgment in Jesus’ sermons gives theological weight to the idea that someone must bear sin’s penalty.
🔹 6. Jesus’ Death Fulfills the Scriptures — Luke 24:26–27
“Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”
(Luke 24:26)
“And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.”
(Luke 24:27)
PSA Elements:
Though this is post-resurrection, Jesus speaks of his own necessitated suffering as foretold by Scripture.
He likely includes texts like Isaiah 53, which says:
“He was pierced for our transgressions… the punishment that brought us peace was upon him…”
Jesus interprets his own suffering through the lens of substitutionary suffering — as “had to happen” to fulfill Scripture.
🔹 Summary: PSA Themes in Jesus' Sermons
PSA Element Jesus' Sermon or Saying
Substitution Mark 10:45, John 10:11, Luke 22:19
Penal Suffering (Judgment) Matt 26:39, Luke 24:26
Voluntary Sacrifice John 10:18
Covenant and Blood Luke 22:20
Necessity of Atonement Luke 24:26
Divine Judgment Matthew 23
✅ Conclusion
While Jesus did not deliver a systematic doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, his own teachings contain the core ingredients:
The idea that his death was for others (substitution),
That his death involved real suffering and judgment (penal),
And that it was the necessary and divine means to bring forgiveness and reconciliation (atonement).
Therefore, a scriptural case for Penal Substitutionary Atonement can be reasonably grounded in the sermons and sayings of Jesus, especially when interpreted through the Jewish sacrificial context and his references to Old Testament prophecy.
Chat GPT is better at this than Dan. Of course Dan will exclude anything that isn't in what he's decided is a "sermon".
For some reason Dan thinks that as long as he uses his magic words, "Stupidly", "Missing the point" etc, that he comments magically become True.
The notion that he thinks that he can declare that I "missed the point" of the very post that I wrote, is simply more arrogance and hubris run amok.
"But you have to admit it's a rational starting point. Right?"
No, it's a horrible starting point. To arbitrarily subdivide the words and teachings of Jesus based on your eisegesis of one verse, with only yourself as the foundation for your claim is insane. For you to demand a two tiered approach to Jesus' teachings, and a third tier for Paul is bizarre at best.
Consider that many of Jesus' "sermons" were to crowds who did not believe Him/in Him. Consider the Sermon and ineraction with the crowd following the Feeding of the 5000, where Jesus made it clear that the crowd was more interested in free food, than in Jesus'. Consider that Jesus was preparing The Apostles to continue His ministry.
"16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Why would Jesus not spend His time preparing those who He was counting on to spread His Word to the entire world, and giving them greater detail than to the disbelieving masses?
In any case, there is no reason (beyond your hunch based on your eisegesis of one verse) to simply accept your arbitrary division of Christ's teachings into two tiers. If anything, the fact that He saved this sort of teaching for those closets to Him argues for it being "more important" (I'm not really arguing that any teaching of Jesus is more or less important, just using your bad logic), than what He shared with the disbelieving masses.
You do you, just stop pretending like you're right.
Strangely enough, when Jesus last spoke to those to whom he was closest and those He was relying on to continue His ministry, He never once mentioned the "poor and oppressed", and certainly never mentioned providing them with material succor.
But that wasn't a "sermon" and it doesn't count.
Craig, STILL missing the point, said:
To arbitrarily subdivide the words and teachings of Jesus based on your eisegesis of one verse, with only yourself as the foundation for your claim is insane
1. As clearly noted and explained: It's NOT arbitrary. There is a rational reason to look in the sermons Jesus preached for PSA when Jesus said he'd come to preach (presumably IN HIS SERMONS) the good news of God for the poor and marginalized. See my engine illustration. That you don't understand that it isn't arbitrary doesn't mean that it is arbitrary. It just means, my son, that you still are missing the point.
2. It's not one verse. It's from Isaiah and the other prophets. It's from Jesus telling John the Baptist's followers that "the poor are having the good news preached to them!" as evidence that Jesus is the One. It's from Jesus telling the goats, "Depart from me!" when they failed to preach the good news for the poor and marginalized (ie, when they failed to aid the poor, the sick, the marginalized). It's from Jesus' Sermons on the Mount/Plain. It's there throughout the old and new testaments.
That you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there.
And here's the thing: It's HELLUVA lot more THERE in the Bible, generally and in Jesus' teachings specifically and Jesus' sermons even MORE specifically than PSA, which is literally completely absent from Jesus' sermons. No matter what "AI" might tell you.
(It's right there in the name, Craig: ARTIFICIAL intelligence. You can count on it for artificial bible study if you ask the question just right, but you can't count on it as reliable.)
Of the five discourses or sermons of Jesus that are the most complete sermons of Jesus in the Gospels, we have, of course, the sermon on the mount/plain. NO mention of PSA. A LOT of emphasis on the poor and wealthy.
The second discourse, in Matthew 10, is Jesus instructing his disciples as THEY go out to preach the good news. There is zero mention of PSA in that coaching sermon. But there is this:
“Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.
Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.
As you go, proclaim this message:
‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,
drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give...
And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”
With the Kingdom of God being something that is repeated as being a place where all are welcome, where the poor and marginalized are welcome and indeed, in this passage, with the disciples preaching THE GOSPEL (again, no mention of PSA) specifically to the sick, the afflicted, the marginalized, those who would be poor and living on the margins. It's good news for THEM, this Realm of God that is open to them, Jesus says.
Again, no mention of PSA in that second discourse.
The third discourse are often listed as his parables in Matthew 13. In these, to be fair, there is nothing literally addressing the poor and marginalized NOR anything addressing PSA. There are verses that speak of the value of the small and insignificant, though, which comes much closer to being something that the poor and marginalized - the small and insignificant in that society - could see as being inclusive of them.
More...
The fourth discourse is the sermon in Matthew 18 that begins by talking about the Greatest in the Realm of God...
“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me...
Again, the poor and marginalized would recognize their lowly state in that world that valued the wealthy and powerful and recognize the welcome. Again, literally NOTHING that could be construed as PSA.
The passage continues to note the futility and gracelessness of the ways of wealth and human power (the parable of the unmerciful servant), concluding with "the master" saying:
Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
Addressing the inclusion of and mercy for the poor and marginalized, but NOTHING of PSA.
The fifth and final discourse, or sermon, often referred to is the "Olivet" discourse, beginning in Matt 23. It begins by contrasting Jesus' way of GRACE and simple forgiveness, with the Pharisees legalism and gracelessness (and nothing of PSA)...
But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them...
And continues with the Seven Woes against the powerful Pharisees and their graceless ways. Nothing of PSA, just forgiveness and not being a douche. He speaks specifically of how they ignore the weightier matters of the law, Justice, mercy, faithfulness (faithfulness to a way inclusive of the poor and marginalized, in context).
Of all the major sermons and teachings of Jesus TO THE PEOPLE (the poor and marginalized that Jesus repeatedly said he was bringing the good news TO), there is nothing of PSA.
And again, just because you don't understand the logic of
"IF Jesus was preaching Good News to the poor and
IF "good news = PSA"
THEN, one would find PSA in these sermons/teachings."
...just because you don't understand the logic - can't even IMAGINE what I'm talking about, apparently, or why it's rational that it would be IN the very sermons he preached - doesn't mean the logic isn't sound.
Craig, apparently not understanding my position, said...
"He never once mentioned the "poor and oppressed", and certainly never mentioned providing them with material succor."
To clarify what my actual position is...
1. It's not merely (or, even) "giving material succor" to the poor.
2. It's literally sharing good news for the poor, healing for the sick, liberty for the captive.
3. It's being an ally of, a friend and CO-worker with, a welcome to the poor and marginalized.
4. It's an attitude of welcome, grace and allyship, not, "giving stuff." The details depend, though.
5. Certainly, if someone is thirsty or hungry, then and there, it's likely going to mean giving water and food, as far as that goes.
6. BUT, what is good news for the poor and marginalized is nothing as lowly as Stuff. It's grace, welcome, love, partnering for empowerment.
In Jesus' day, as now, the poor have been marginalized, blamed, looked down upon, deprived of opportunities, abused, pushed to the literal margins of society, abandoned. Good news then is welcome, grace, justice, empowerment.
Merely giving a starving person some food and water may be a stop gap, but finding housing, employment, community and opportunity, THAT'S Good News.
Just to clarify.
Just as an aside, about three weeks ago, while the pastor at the church we've been attending lately was on vacation, his first "substitute" was an old dude who I never saw before, he was introduced with his list of credentials and he turned out to be a really good speaker. And what was his sermon about? We were in the middle of a series of sermons covering the Holy Ghost (I like using that term every now and then when feeling nostalgic for my youth). This particular sermon happened to speak about the Isaiah passage Christ read aloud. This dude was referencing the various points about to whom Christ came to bring the Good News with the same understanding as the passage has had for me. Specifically, He wasn't speaking of the materially poor. Many commentaries say Isaiah itself isn't speaking about the materially poor.
As to PSA, I really don't understand Dan's objection, why he so vehemently criticizes the notion that it's the actual teaching of Scripture and of Christ Himself. He mocks it as evidence of a "petty godling". The dude's a fool.
Craig, failing to understand reality, falsely claimed with no proof...
So much of this discussion comes down to those on the left, using incomplete data
I/we don't go looking for data to support our theories. We go to experts and scholars who research this - left, right, apolitical, whatever - and look at the data they provide. It was the federal gov't's numbers, it was the law enforcement numbers, it was just data and it DID consistently point to what many law enforcement officials declared was the concern (in the last 20 years) that our greatest threat for domestic violence was from far right actors in the US.
Don't blame US for citing what traditionally conservative law enforcement agencies were saying.
And I note that you provide no proof for an alternative set of data. Just that you REALLY think that we should do the research differently or come to different conclusions. But who are you? What is YOUR expertise in US violence data?
I thought so.
As to your unsupported guesses and hunches about going back to 1965 (a randomly selected date - which you complain about with Jesus' sermons, but whatever), you may well be correct. There WAS more violence coming from the left in the mid to late 60s... NOT that there was no violence coming from the right. We lived through those days, old man. We're old enough to remember the white violence when they "tried to integrate our schools!" in the 70s, for instance.
But many experts have noted that a lot of the violence in the 60s was from left wing groups committing violence to buildings, property and sometimes people.
But hell, why not go back to the 1500s and all the violence done by traditionalist religionists, executing people who held "wrong" opinions about God. We could choose a lot of dates.
IF we're talking about MODERN violence and the trends since 9/11, then LEO experts and others (NOT "the left") say it's been most common from white nationalists, "christian" nationalists and otherwise, white wing extremists. Just own it.
I will be glad to note that the data suggests a slight increase in violence from the left, but not that it's predominantly from the left. At all.
Come on. Stop trying to defend the indefensible with your wishes about how you personally, as a non-expert, WISH the experts conducted their data.
Art,
While it should go without saying that the Jews in 1st century Israel were oppressed by Rome, and suffered economically from that oppression, Jesus clearly was not coming exclusively or primarily for the Jews, the materially poor, and the politically oppressed. Obviously He wasn't excluding them, but He clearly wasn't focusing on them either.
For some reason Dan thinks that as long as he uses his magic words, "Stupidly", "Missing the point" etc, that he comments magically become True.
1. Of course it's arbitrary. Name one theologian, scholar, pastor, or teacher, that draws this distinction between Jesus' sermons and the rest of Jesus' teachings. It's something that you've conjured up based on your personal, subjective, confidence in your "rational" faculties even though your rational faculties are subjective, imperfect, flawed, incomplete, personal, biased, and affected by your preconceived, unproven, assumptions.
2. You cited one verse, that you now add others doesn't help your point. It also doesn't prove that "the poor" means primarily/exclusively/specifically only the materially poor.
That you conjure it up, doesn't mean that it's there either. The problem you have is that I do see the language you obsess over, and I place it in the larger context of the meta narrative of Scripture.
Well done, you didn't actually deal with the facts that ChatGPT brought up, you simply dismissed a tool and the results provided by that tool, in favor of some bullshit you've made up. As noted, Jesus sermons contain the elements of PSA, without containing the term PSA or an exhaustive formulation of PSA. Much like the same things you claim are present.
AI is a tool, like anything else. In this case, it saved me time in compiling data that refuted your unproven claims. No more, no less. I'd argue that it's not any more inherently unreliable than your personal, subjective, fallen, flawed, imperfect, Reason and Rationality.
1. Yet that's what you focus on.
2. Well, thanks for apparently contradicting #1.
3. With little or no regard, apparently for their spiritual condition.
4. Blah, blah, blah.
5. Despite Jesus clear dismissal of those who followed Him merely to get more free food.
6. Yeah, it's all those things to help them materially and politically. But again, you contradict your #1.
As if "housing, employment, community, and opportunity" are somehow not "material succor".
As you have not proven your claim/premise/assumption that Jesus' "sermons" are somehow more important, valuable, or authoritative that His direct teaching to His closest followers, merely doubling down on your unproven claims doesn't make those claims True.
"I/we don't go looking for data to support our theories."
First line is more of Dan's magical incantations, then he jumps right into the unproven claims.
"Don't blame US for citing what traditionally conservative law enforcement agencies were saying."
I'm not. I'm pointing out that you're making claims based on incomplete data, and arbitrarily excluding anything prior to 2005 (your claim), and excluding significant events post 2005.
"Just that you REALLY think that we should do the research differently or come to different conclusions."
Obviously advocating for a compiling of the most complete dataset possible, which does not selectively exclude some political violence, not assigning incidents to the "right" when no political motive is present, and includes threats of violence is some radical and insane notion.
"a randomly selected date"
It wasn't, but feel free to pretend. I explained my reasoning. I'm not saying that my reasoning is perfect, but it's an attempt to provide a framework to include all "modern era" political violence.
"- which you complain about with Jesus' sermons, but whatever"
Apples and oranges. That you haven't proven your claims about Jesus' sermons is part of the problem.
"But who are you? What is YOUR expertise in US violence data?"
A reasonably intelligent adult with a enough skill to do my own research and look at what others who've analyzed the "data" say. It's not like you're an expert.
"you may well be correct. There WAS more violence coming from the left in the mid to late 60s..."
Not to mention the '70s '80s and '90s. Regardless, why arbitrarily exclude that violence?
"NOT that there was no violence coming from the right. We lived through those days, old man. We're old enough to remember the white violence when they "tried to integrate our schools!" in the 70s, for instance."
What part of "collect ALL of the DATA on ALL of the POLITICAL VIOLENCE back to 1965" was UNCLEAR? Or does the notion of collecting, collating, and accurately describing ALL of the DATA on ALL of the political violence scare you? I've posted multiple links to multiple sources that explore this topic, which you seem to have ignored.
As I noted, including racially motivated violence introduces problems in analysis due to the fact that much of the racial violence was from the DFL. It seems more helpful to analyze that separately, especially as it wasn't definitively political.
"But many experts have noted that a lot of the violence in the 60s was from left wing groups committing violence to buildings, property and sometimes people."
Ahhhhhhhh the "It's only violence against property" excuse. Are you really suggesting that burning, bombing, or damaging government buildings does not meet the definition of insurrection? What possible reason could there be for excluding/excusing/ignoring property damage in the calculus of political violence? But hey, if we're arbitrarily cutting off at 9/11, then why exclude the riots from 2014-2021, the occupations, and the physical attacks on various government entities between 2001 and 2025?
"IF we're talking about MODERN violence and the trends since 9/11"
Thank you for making my point. The arbitrary definition of "MODERN" political violence to exclude political violence in the modern political era skews the data. Again, why are you so afraid of looking at ALL of the DATA back to the mid '60s or 1907? Why would I own "DATA" that is incomplete, and excludes some political violence.
Well, it's good to know that you acknowledge the increase of violence on the left, it's too bad you support excluding so much left wing violence of the past. It's interesting, you seem to be suggesting that LE focus on the "right wing" violence from the past, instead of the increase in left wing violence in the present.
Yeah, it is completely indefensible to want the "experts" to dispassionately consider ALL of the DATA from the "MODERN" era of political violence and to include property damage, non murder physical harm, and threats of violence. Looking at all the "DATA", what a crazy idea. But to focus on the past, and (metaphorically) fight the last war is something that the Government has been doing for a very long time. Maybe the focus on "right wing extremist" groups hiding in compounds in Idaho is why LE has missed this recent spate of left wing/trans/nihilists who've been the problem more recently.
FYI, I've looked at the "data" and cannot see one bit of "data" that quantifies the number of "right wing extremists" in the US, nor the numbers of members in the "right wing extremist" groups. Let alone how many of those from 20 years ago are still in existence.
Maybe focus on groups like ANTIFA, and the Various "John Brown" violent left wing groups active right now.
You read, and completely fail to understand.
Craig...
"Name one theologian..."
Theologians who disagree with PSA, who believe it's absent from the Gospels, which includes Jesus' sermons...
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/emmahiggs/2016/04/a-thoroughly-biblical-argument-against-penal-substitutionary-atonement/
Bart Ehrmann
Brian McLaren
Walter Wink
Harry Emerson Fosdick
Jerry Robinson has many good articles and podcasts on the topic... and he appears to be someone coming from a much more traditional starting point... he just disagrees strongly that PSA is a Christian or biblical theory...
https://truerichesacademy.com/top-10-reasons-to-reject-penal-substitution-atonement-theory/
Of course, many anabaptists reject PSA as contrary to the teachings of Jesus...
https://anabaptistworld.org/mennonite-identity-amid-the-fresno-fiasco/
This Orthodox Christian states clearly that it is unbiblical and attempts to use the OT to support the theory are especially wrong headed and ahistorical.
https://liveorthodoxy.com/en/2020/03/06/2020-03-07-penal-substitutionary-theory-is-a-poor-substitution-for-biblical-atonement/
That's more than one, but there you go.
Remember Kathy Griffin posting a picture of herself with Trump's severed head? Or the recent video of a woman in a "Make America Kind Again" trying to behead a effigy of Trump. How about the angry mob dragging Trump, in effigy, through the streets? How about the rock band disemboweling and effigy of Trump complete to fake blood spraying everywhere?
Jewish students prevented from accessing public areas of various college/university campuses? Violent threats against the Chauvin Jurors? Threats of violence and actual violence against MPLS cops? The siege of the 2nd precinct in MPLS?
Yeah, let's not include those kinds of things when quantifying political violence
One more of Dan's magic incantations that allow him to arrogantly dismiss other positions. Which, strangely, is an affliction that Dan indulges in often.
The very existence of 3 other theories of the Atonement are proof enough that there are people who hold to one and disagree with the others. "
What I've asked (and I note your editing of my request) is that you provide people other than you that hold to your two tiered authority hunch. That the highest authority of Jesus' teachings was only in "sermons" which were preached specifically to the "poor and oppressed".
That you've managed to clear the, not very impressive, hurdle of finding some people who disagree with all or part of the PSA formulation is hardly an accomplishment.
I've been quite clear, for years, that I find PSA to be the theory that best encapsulates the most aspects of Jesus' atonement within the context of the entirety of scripture. I've repeatedly said that I can see value in aspects of the other theories, and unlike you apparently, I wouldn't say that adherence to one of the 4 popular Atonement theories is grounds for division.
Maybe now you can do what I actually asked which is to prove the specific claim you've made in this thread vis-a-vis the two tiered teachings of Jesus. you know answering the actual specific question I actually asked, instead of the highly edited version you "quoted".
"Name one theologian, scholar, pastor, or teacher, that draws this distinction between Jesus' sermons and the rest of Jesus' teachings."
Try again.
Craig:
Name one theologian, scholar, pastor, or teacher, that draws this distinction between Jesus' sermons and the rest of Jesus' teachings.
If a theologian, like the many I cited (not all of them, to be clear) do NOT believe that your human middle ages theory of PSA is BIBLICAL, at all, then it goes without saying that they don't think it's found in the Gospels OR in Jesus' specific teachings.
And once again, whether you recognize it or not, it's a logical conclusion:
IF Jesus says he's preaching the Gospel to the people and
IF this PSA theory IS "the gospel" (yuck!)
THEN a rational place to find Jesus speaking of PSA IS IN HIS SERMONS.
And IF it's NOT in those sermons,
THEN Jesus did not preach a good news of PSA.
And he just literally didn't. That's a simple reality, observable by simply looking at his sermons/teachings.
Again, you MIGHT try to make a case, "Yes, Jesus did not EVER preach PSA to the people, but there is a reason for that...." (however weak that case may be), but you just have to admit the factual observable reality that PSA is literally NOT in the sermons of Jesus.
Reality is reality, son.
If you can't admit reality, then. you've lost any credibility already. You've demonstrated you're more tied to a medieval human theory than to Jesus' actual words OR simple observable reality.
Now, do the right thing. Admit this basic reality starting point.
Also, did you read Emma Higgs (the first link) noted about "invisible goggles..."?
Can you see that it's at least POSSIBLE that you've got some goggles on that are preventing you from seeing reality?
By all means, take those goggles off. The MAIN reason I supported PSA for decades (the teaching i was raised with) was because I was so condition to find PSA that, of course, I found it. It was only with deeper, more open-minded, clear-thinking, rational look at that Text which I love that I came to have to abandon PSA as literally a human theory that literally is not in the teachings of Jesus and, at best, one might say they can find justification for it in the teachings of Paul... BUT ONLY if they interpret Jesus through the lens of Paul and not the other way around.
And ultimately, it was my conservative, Bible-loving, Scripture-reading traditionalists who taught me that the FIRST step for followers of JESUS to do, when it comes to reading the bible, is to read ALL the bible through the lens of Jesus, as Jesus and his words represent the best, most clear representation of God and God's ways.
You want to understand Scripture and value its teachings? Read the whole through the lens of Jesus' literal words (including what he DIDN'T say).
So, you still won't do what I nicely and respectfully asked you to do. If you're not going to, just say so instead of this obfuscating bullshit.
That you subjectively convince yourself that you are right, who cares?
Once again, Dan decides to define reality.
Really impressive dodge to avoid answering the question you were asked. Especially the complete lack of objective proof.
No, it was off topic and didn't answer the question I asked. I am a limited man, with limited time in any given day, and I'm busy, therefore I'm not going to waste time reading something that doesn't answer the question I asked.
Anything is possible. The problem is that you haven't presented ANYTHING that is persuasive or convincing enough to counter the (fairly extensive) study I've done on the topic. That you're wasting time restating the obvious, and ignoring my earlier response to your non-answer, isn't conducive to me going along with your bullshit. I'm always open to considering other views, but when it's something I've put this much time into, I'd have to see something extraordinary.
"You want to understand Scripture and value its teachings?"
As if you hold the magic secret to doing so.
"Read the whole through the lens of Jesus' literal words (including what he DIDN'T say)."
Well, if Jesus didn't say literal words, then His silence is not "literal words". This could be one of the two or three stupidest things you've said, given your insistence that only certain of Jesus' "literal words" really count and have authority. One more of your unproven hunches. That You seem to be ignoring or dismissing the actual "literal words" of Jesus I've used as examples, this is clearly a pot/kettle situation.
One difference between us is that I also listen to Jesus' "literal words" in the OT and in Acts and Revelation.
I've indulged your little games long enough. Either answer the question that was asked, or stop with the bullshit.
You've been warned that any further attempts to go down this off topic rabbit hole with be edited or deleted. If that happens, it's because you made a poor choice.
"Also, did you read Emma Higgs (the first link) noted about "invisible goggles..."?"
I did! It was great for some laughs, but not very compelling otherwise. Lots of injection of what she wants Scripture to say, lots of bad understanding. She even begins with a true Dan-ism of asserting without any proof that everyone who reads Scripture does so in a biased manner. She does nothing to "prove" that Scripture doesn't preach PSA.
""Read the whole through the lens of Jesus' literal words (including what he DIDN'T say).""
But ignore He is God and always has been, because His Words in the OT are often rejected by Dan, and it seems that's the case concerning PSA as well (regardless of which Testament is referenced).
Obviously, everyone approaches scripture with some level of "bias". That is human nature. I tend to try to approach scripture from the perspective of looking for the plain meaning first, looking at the larger context, and that scripture is the revealed word of YHWH. Is it possible that there are areas where I place my personal views over Scripture, sure. Do I insist that my Reason is sufficient to conclude that Scripture can be interpreted in ways that contradict the plain meaning of the text, no.
For Dan, who seems to personify the who "goggles" thing, to pretend like this is something that we struggle with but he doesn't is simply one more delusion.
Art,
Exactly, to ignore the fact that the words of YHWH in the OT are the words of Jesus is foolish. To then pretend like SOME words of Jesus are somehow "more" than other words of Jesus, is nuts.
Post a Comment