https://x.com/shane_pruitt78/status/1983644859492933891?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Jesus didn't spend time and eat with sinners because He wanted to appear tolerant and affirming. He spent time with them to show them He is God, and how to live differently. The Gospel is not about tolerance, it’s about transformation."
98 comments:
Your source's theory:
"The Gospel is not about tolerance, it’s about transformation."
I'd agree, it IS about transformation. But if you look at the text and the context of all these various stories where Jesus accepted, loved, touched, ate with the outsiders, the untouchables, the marginalized, we can see that Jesus did both. Of course, he "tolerated" the marginalized and untouchables... but he did so much more. He ACCEPTED them. He welcomed them. He TOUCHED the literally (by law) "untouchables..." He made it clear that he was not abiding by the contemporary mores of keeping the undesirables on the margins. HE WELCOMED them to the dinner table.
He WAS about transformation, but he was about transforming cultures and societies that considered people untouchable and were willing for people to be marginalized and left off at the margins.
He both tolerated (such a shallow word for what he did) and CELEBRATED and welcomed the marginalized, he sought the transformation of society, the rich and poor alike.
This is why Jesus was a hero to the people. He was coming with a radical message, a radically different Way that stood in opposition to the marginalization and oppression and indifference towards the poor and marginalized. He transformed society and world views.
Thanks be to God.
Your source's opinion:
"Jesus didn't spend time and eat with sinners because He wanted to appear tolerant and affirming. He spent time with them to show them He is God, and how to live differently.
On the other hand, I'd disagree, at least in part, with this theory of your source. He spent time with the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed and even the oppressORS to show US ALL how to live differently. How to live with an attitude and policy of grace and welcome and forgiveness. How to forego the traditions of "they're unworthy" and "they're awful sinners..." and "they're depraved and not beloved by God due to their sin..." and move TOWARDS a theory of love, grace and welcome.
I'd say the text teaches pretty clearly that he showed solidarity with the poor and marginalized to demonstrate exactly that God is loving and tolerant and relishes/enjoys/desires their company. To show that HE IS God, and that God loves them and welcomes them. Something that hated wretches like Matthew and prostitutes and culturally despised/pushed out "sinners" would have found to be incredibly loving and to be literal good news, coming from God's own Self and God's own Son.
What do you think, Craig?
Dan's theory seems to be that Jesus was about "transformation" without actually being about "transformation". That Jesus accepted people continuing in their sin and expected nothing. When He "touched" the "untouchables" He did so in order to transform them by healing them.
The problem with this theory, is that there is no proof that it's actually happened. The people who He was a hero to, called for His crucifixion because He didn't assume the mantle of an earthly king and overthrow the Romans. He never called for societal change, except as a result of personal transformation after salvation.
But, by all means, keep making stuff up.
I think I accidentally deleted one of your comments. As Blogger will not let me resurrect it, I apologize for the accidental deletion and will happily allow it to post (assuming it meets the appropriate standards) when you do.
Dan's is indeed a self-satisfying fiction, preferring to inject into passages his own pleasing fantasies. Transforming is not tolerating. It's indeed the opposite. Worse, Dan's idea of "tolerance" is enabling, which is aiding and abetting sin, as evidenced by his 17+ years of never expressing any occasion in which he encouraged any of his beloved LGBTQ++++ associates to repent of their LGBTQ++++ ways.
Of course you would, but you disagreeing is hardly proof that you are right or that he is wrong.
I think that a divine Jesus who came to do the will of His Father and to bring about anything other than some sort of politico-social revolution scares you. I think that a divine Jesus who came because He was God, and to demonstrate that fact along with facilitating salvation though His death scares you. I think that even if you are correct in your unproven hunch, that the reason He did so, is to show that He was Divine and to call them to follow Him into His Kingdom. He clearly spent time (as you note) with those who were NOT poor and marginalized. He certainly claimed to forgive sins. His very name, proclaims His role in YHWH's Kingdom. But if limiting His ministry to merely helping meet the temporal/physical needs of a few people makes you feel good, then go for it.
FYI, this was the comment I though I'd accidentally deleted.
Excellent point. Transforming is pretty much the opposite of tolerating. I don't quite understand Dan's need to have a Jesus with all of these limits, but clearly he does need this limited Jesus.
Craig:
Dan's theory seems to be that Jesus was about "transformation" without actually being about "transformation". That Jesus accepted people continuing in their sin and expected nothing.
My theory is that the text and context are pretty clear that Jesus came to welcome people into God's Realm, the Kingdom of God (if you prefer), the Beloved Community. THUS, transforming us from lives of selfishness, greed and not caring about the poor and marginalized INTO a realm where all are welcome. That is transformational, is it not?
Jesus was also celebrated by the poor and marginalized because he taught a radical new way, this way of welcome and inclusion. Where the point is NOT "how totally depraved are you?" but "Will you accept grace and join us in this beloved community?"
In all of Jesus' sermons, you continually here this literal good news of a beloved community/realm of God, where the poor and marginalized are welcomed. And this way of grace and welcome was a radical change from the cultural norms of, Who is IN and who is OUT? We're ALL invited, Jesus said, and the followers came. Here's some textual and contextual information from Ehrman about who was following Jesus and why.
https://ehrmanblog.org/the-radical-teachings-of-jesus-and-why-no-one-follows-them/
Craig opined/theorized (incorrectly, as it turns out):
I think that a divine Jesus who came to do the will of His Father and to bring about anything other than some sort of politico-social revolution scares you. I think that a divine Jesus who came because He was God, and to demonstrate that fact along with facilitating salvation though His death scares you.
Why would it scare me? It DOES bore me and strike me as especially vapid, graceless, lightweight, unbiblical and counter to Jesus' actual teachings. A boring, do-nothing god who at best, offers maybe a possible hope for a FEW people to be invited to an afterlife. Ho hum. But scare me? Why, pray tell?
Craig:
But if limiting His ministry to merely helping meet the temporal/physical needs of a few people makes you feel good
Makes ME feel good? Clearly, it delights Jesus, who told those who did just that, "Yay, my beloved! Welcome to the realm of God!" And if it's good enough for Jesus, who I count as my Lord and Savior, it's good enough for me.
Craig...
When He "touched" the "untouchables" He did so in order to transform them by healing them.
He didn't have to violate cultural norms and laws to heal them. He's God. He could wiggle his nose from the other side of the street to hral them.
But no, these outcasts, loathed Others, considered literally unclean and untouchable... Jesus showed a Different way. He showed personal compassion and love.
He touched them. He welcomed the unwelcomed. He ate dinner with the cultural outcasts. And in so doing, he healed the broken relationships between the oppressors (Matthew) and the oppressed.
He touched them with compassion and welcome, right? A different Way.
And the poor and oppressed took notice.
Craig...
The problem with this theory, is that there is no proof that it's actually happened.
Of course there is. Within the first century, even the enemies of the church said that the church had "turned the world upside down!" They were living into this new Way that Jesus taught. This new realm, this beloved community where the outcasts were NOT threatened and abused, but welcomed and loved. And over the centuries, this imperfect church, even in its imperfections, has changed the world, leading the way in fights against slavery, poverty and oppression... in favor of human rights and basic kindness.
God's will being done, on earth!
Hot dang! Of course it's been tested and proven over the millenia.
On the other hand, there literally is no objective that Jesus' blood enabled God to forgive us, because Jesus "paid the price for our sin."
Am I right?
Craig...
The problem with this theory, is that there is no proof that it's actually happened.
As a couple of other obvious examples, we have Jesus welcoming at least three more well-off, potentially oppressive men in Matthew, Zaccheus and the rich young man. And two of three DID welcome that grace and joined that realm and, in the process, released that filthy lucre that was poisoning them and, more importantly, the poor they'd taken advantage of.
This IS textual proof that it was happening in Jesus' ministry, right?
Craig...
The people who He was a hero to, called for His crucifixion because He didn't assume the mantle of an earthly king and overthrow the Romans.
Only some. I heard more than a few traditional preachers back in the day and read more, since, that point out that it wasn't necessarily Jesus' followers calling for the release of Barabbas. The Pharisees were rigging the court, you'll recall. And many of his closest followers had gone into hiding once the active oppression kicked in.
Just like today, in fact.
"He didn't have to violate cultural norms and laws to heal them. He's God. He could wiggle his nose from the other side of the street to hral them."
Interesting. The god you pray to, who is powerless to intervene in the lives of people can now just magically heal people.
Yes, He did. Strangely enough He chose not to show that love and compassion to everyone He encountered.
Interesting that you offer a couple of out of context snippets from scripture as your "proof". I'll simply note that despite the alleged good impression the early Christians made, it didn't keep them out of the arenas. Strangely enough, it's never been "proven" on a large scale.
"Am I right?"
If taking a couple of out of context snippets from Scripture and some random events from history constitutes "objective proof", that's one thing. But it's unlikely that you would apply the same standards of "proof" to anything I'd offer as you do to your own hunches.
"My theory is that the text and context are pretty clear that Jesus came to welcome people into God's Realm, the Kingdom of God (if you prefer), the Beloved Community. THUS, transforming us from lives of selfishness, greed and not caring about the poor and marginalized INTO a realm where all are welcome. That is transformational, is it not?"
That's your eisegesis.
Dan cites Bart Ehrman, of all people, for insights into Christian teaching. That's funny.
"It DOES bore me and strike me as especially vapid, graceless, lightweight, unbiblical and counter to Jesus' actual teachings."
Not His actual teachings. The teachings you made up.
"Clearly, it delights Jesus, who told those who did just that, "Yay, my beloved! Welcome to the realm of God!""
Please cite Gospel, chapter and verse for this. I'll wait here while you don't.
"And if it's good enough for Jesus, who I count as my Lord and Savior, it's good enough for me."
Always on YOUR terms, not on His.
"On the other hand, there literally is no objective that Jesus' blood enabled God to forgive us, because Jesus "paid the price for our sin."
Am I right?"
As usual, no. Jesus Himself attested to His reason for existing being to be a sacrifice for many. His Apostles, including those who wrote the Epistles, also affirmed this Truth. That's what being the "Lamb of God" was all about.
If Eherman is all you have, I'm not wasting my time.
Because a Jesus who came only ot do "the will of His Father" and usher in the "Kingdom of Heaven" is not the malleable, impotent Jesus you opine about. The fact that you can't bring yourself to use the terms "Father' or "Kingdom of Heaven/YHWH" seems to indicate fear of the possibility that YHWH really is a "Father" and that He really is a "King" with a "Kingdom". That you need euphemisms to avoid the terms Jesus used speaks volumes.
I can think of nothing to describe your mainstreaming of YHWH other than fear.
Yes it does seem as limiting Jesus ministry to a few "good works" that you can emulate and make yourself feel good is your focus. I do love it when you make things up, put your made up stuff in quotes, and pretend like your made up words are a quote from Jesus.
"This IS textual proof that it was happening in Jesus' ministry, right?"
I'm not sure what your point is. Clearly in 30% of those encounters, there was no transformation at all. So I'm not sure what your point is. Oh, and in that instance Jesus makes it clear that any transformation is the work of YHWH, not of man. Strangely enough, you ignored Jesus' encounter with the Centurion, which did not result in the same kind of transformation. Nor does it take into account the other instances of transformation that do not fit inside your tiny little box, nor the fact that Jesus did not demand Matthew of Zacheus "sell all of their possessions", whatever transformation they experienced resulted in them being changed and then taking some action. The problem with your hunch is that the actual text in those two instances doesn't demand what you've added. So, not exactly proof of your hunch.
If you say so. Of course Jesus followers were already a minority, and however you spin it, the crowds calling for His death were large enough to sway Pilate. As Jesus trial, at this point, was in the hands of Pilate (a Roman), the Jewish leaders clearly had no sway to influence Pilate. In fact, Pilate was clear that he found no guilt in Jesus and that he gave the crowd the choice only to abdicate the responsibility and stave off a riot/rebellion.
But if making up hunches allows you to feel better about yourself, don't let me stop you.
Craig:
Clearly in 30% of those encounters, there was no transformation at all.
Well, I never said that all people accept Grace, accept this Way and some choose to deliberately not be transformed. The rich young ruler, for instance. AT LEAST at that point in his life. Dives/the rich guy in Lazarus' story would be another example of yet another wealthy man who chose to be on the outside (of course, it's parabolic, but the point stands).
I never said all people accept grace. But people CAN choose grace, choose this other Way, different than the ways of legalism and selfish oppression. We see it in the stories.
I gather from your words here and elsewhere that you personally hold a theory that people CAN'T choose grace, is that right? (Note: that's a question, not an accusation.)
Craig:
in that instance Jesus makes it clear that any transformation is the work of YHWH, not of man
I mentioned Matthew's dinner story,
Zaccheus and
the rich young ruler.
Which "instance" are you talking about? Jesus doesn't say that in Matthew's story. Indeed, in the rich young ruler story, it's clearly that man's choice to NOT surrender all.
In Matthew's story, we have Jesus saying:
On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Indicating a choice for the "sinners," those who miss the mark.
And same in Zaccheus' story. He invites/calls Zaccheus down from the tree and Zaccheus came down. Famously, making the choice to follow Jesus AND return his ill-gotten gain and then some.
So, which "instance..."?
Dan:
My theory is that the text and context are pretty clear that Jesus came to welcome people into God's Realm, the Kingdom of God (if you prefer), the Beloved Community. THUS, transforming us from lives of selfishness, greed and not caring about the poor and marginalized INTO a realm where all are welcome. That is transformational, is it not?
Craig:
The problem with this theory, is that there is no proof that it's actually happened.
Dan, offering the literal proof in the text of Matthew and Zaccheus (for starters) that it HAD literally (if you take the text seriously) happened, thus disproving your theory above...
"This IS textual proof that it was happening in Jesus' ministry, right?"
Craig:
I'm not sure what your point is.
I'm addressing your claim that my theory has no evidence for it. As I noted, there literally is.
But perhaps it's a case of you not knowing what my theory is. What do you think it is?
Craig:
If you say so. Of course Jesus followers were already a minority, and however you spin it, the crowds calling for His death were large enough to sway Pilate.
As I've noted in several ways:
My theory is that the text and context are pretty clear
that Jesus came to welcome people into God's Realm,
the Kingdom of God (if you prefer), the Beloved Community.
THUS, [ie, by welcoming and inviting us all, beginning with the poor and marginalized...]
transforming us from lives of selfishness, greed and not caring about the poor and marginalized
INTO a realm where all are welcome.
That is transformational, is it not?
I have not said that ALL the people were on Jesus' side.
I've been abundantly clear that, in the story as recorded in the Gospels, that there are clear opponents (of varying degrees) to Jesus' Good news for the poor and marginalized. Those opposed include the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Teachers of the Law, the Roman gov't, the rich and the oppressors. Not ALL of any of those, but enough that they eventually killed him.
So, I haven't said that all the people were on Jesus' side.
What I have been saying is that the poor and marginalized, the non-elite, the non-religious, women, the sick, the outcasts were huge fans of his (and John the Baptist, before him), because Jesus was teaching a different Way than that of the legalists and puritans and powerful. Because his message was literal good news for the poor and marginalized, the oppressed and outcasts, he had a huge following. Enough that those in power are literally recorded as finding him to be a threat.
I believe that is a fairly faithful and recognizable view of the biblical teachings about who was in support of Jesus and who was opposed. Do you agree?
And, of course, as in any time and place, there were almost certainly many who simply had no dog in that fight. They may well have been indifferent to Jesus AND indifferent to the rich and powerful. But I'd wager there weren't many in the oppressed and poor classes that were indifferent towards the rich and powerful.
Craig:
The god you pray to, who is powerless to intervene in the lives of people can now just magically heal people.
Again, if you have objective proof that God objectively personally steps in and makes supernatural miracles happen to stop wars, end disease, stop rapes, etc, I'd LOVE to know about that. That would be cool. I'm noting the reality that I, nor you, nor anyone outside of charlatans have tried to suggest that God has magically healed people, turned tornadoes away, stopped a lion attack or a rape. Or all rapes.
But the data is, your God and mine does not objectively personally step in to stop disasters. God has left that to us, for us to make the choice (or not) to be God's presence in this world.
Do you have some kind of objective proof otherwise? I'm all ears? If not, can you agree that we're talking about the same thing: That God does not objectively intervene to personally make changes/save lives?
As to the text in this story, as I've been pretty clear: I generally take things at face value, all things being equal. In Genesis, in a time of mythic story telling, where we find a mythic-sounding story, taking THAT story at face value is to consider it a myth, as it obviously is, just on the face of it.
In Jesus' time, in a time that was much more moving towards literal stories/histories, I take, for instance, that when Jesus says he made some spit/mud and rubbed it on the eyes of a blind man, that the man who couldn't see the day before, could now see. I take that fairly literally. And then, I admit that I just don't know what the mechanism was, any more than you know what the mechanism was.
But any miracles, if miracles they were, are not the point of the stories. In the story of the leper being healed, the point (in the text and greater context of Jesus' literal teachings as understood by the people then) was that Jesus was offering another Way.
The cultural way of the day was to blame the sick for their own sickness, to consider them unclean, to treat them as literal outsiders, to ignore them (at best) and let them die (at worst).
Jesus offered a way that involved him actually touching the culturally "untouchables." THAT is the miracle of the story in the context of Jesus' teachings. Magic healings that may or may not happen one in 100 billion times are not impressive.
A NEW Way that can happen here, and now, as we accept this Way of Grace and welcome and love, THAT is impressive, and, again, the point of the story, it seems to many of us.
One last thing for tonight: I notice you dismiss with a huffy whiff the academic scholar, Bart Ehrman. I thought you objected to dismissing experts just because they were partisan. Ehrman is well-respected and clearly knowledgeable in is fields of expertise.
Do you have some data-driven reason for dismissing Ehrman out of hand or is it just because he's so contrary to your partisan positions/theologies?
I'm merely applying the same standards you apply to experts I've offered to Eherman. I'm not saying that he doesn't have some degree of expertise in some aspects of Biblical studies, but his preconceptions about many aspects of Scripture and the nature of YHWH raise questions about his expertise on this particular topic. That you choose to appeal to one expert, and then choose one who is essentially an atheist isn't quite the win you think it is. I'm happy to play the dueling experts game, if you'll show anyone I offer the same respect you show Eherman. In short, if you're going to dismiss an expert I've offered for being "too Reformed" or too "white and male", I see no reason why I'm required to blindly accept Eherman on this topic.
But, it's good that you acknowledge that Eherman is hardly an unbiased source and is certainly not in the mainstream.
What's strange about Eherman is that you would likely disagree with him on multiple topics, yet cherry pick one where you agree with him. That you can't find someone even close to orthodox speaks volumes.
OK, one more last thing...
Strangely enough He chose not to show that love and compassion to everyone He encountered.
I think the biblical witness and Christian tradition is 100% clear: Jesus was 100% a human man. He had to sleep. He got tired. He was likely sometimes sick, grumpy and plain exhausted.
We DO know, given the biblical witness, that Jesus had very little patience for/with rich oppressors and religious legalists. On the other hand, we have, I think, zero biblical stories where he was impatient or rude with the typical people if the day... the poor and marginalized, the least of these.
Which has long been my point. I've never said Jesus or God have "fixed" everybody.
Nor have you.
So... What's your point?
Well, according to Scripture and Christian tradition Jesus was fully God and fully man, but you seem to have left that part out.
Jesus also had little patience for those who only followed Him for free food, but let's also ignore that.
Nice straw man though.
Your problem is not that Jesus didn't fix "everybody" from being "poor and marginalized" it's that He hardly fixed anybody from being "poor and marginalized", nor did He leave behind followers who even attempted to stop large numbers of people from being "poor and marginalized". Strangely enough you also insist that YHWH wanted to "fix" "ALL" of humanity, but that He was somehow unable to do so.
That is True, you didn't. However you offered 3 examples to prove your point, and none of those examples actually prove the point you want to make. As far as Matthew, we have no Biblical evidence of whether or not he had wealth, nor is there evidence of what he did with it. Zaccheus voluntarily gave away a portion of his wealth, with no apparent command from Jesus. The Rich kid was told to give away ALL of his wealth, and he walked away. Your three proof share so little commonality as to be useless for proving your claims. As for the rich guy and Lazarus, the rich guy was already dead and Jesus prevented him from warning his rich family so as to avoid the same fate. I Jesus was so into transformation of the rich, why would He not have done so in this case.
In the "instance" of the rich young guy Jesus concludes with "“With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.”. Jesus seems clear that it is impossible for people to transform themselves, but that only YHWH can transform people. Of course this is the same God that you insist in impotent to intervene.
This notion that humans have the power to thwart YHWH's desires, intentions, and plans, seems foreign to Scripture but makes perfect sense coming from you.
That Zaccheus chose to "come down from the tree" was hardly the action that "saved" or transformed him. But stretch things however you like.
Now Dan seems to think that quoting a few out of context words from Scripture as a proof text is "literal proof" of his hunches about everything focusing on money being 100% True. Of course, this means that you have to insist that 3 instances somehow overshadow or nullify every other example of transformation in Scripture and that transformation can only involve money. That Jesus did not require everyone He encountered who had wealth and power to divest themselves, nor was He consistent among your three proof texts, seems like a problem.
Your hunch is that the only/primary transformation that Jesus focused on was focused around wealth.
If you say so, I guess we simply must accept your unproven hunch as True.
I'll simply note the reality that you've gone from discussing the point of the post, to insisting that your unproven, personal, subjective, hunches are the only possible correct hunches.
Once again, Dan insists that the only possible measure of anything is whether or not Dan has seen any "data" for whatever is in question. In an earlier comment Dan insists that a few proof texts from Scripture are "literal proof", yet now dismisses Scripture as "data". Whatever.
I see no point in continuing to waste time with someone who insists that they have the power to simply dismiss the "biblical witness" and to magically determine that the "point" of the miracles recorded in the "biblical witness" wasn't to point to Jesus as being the Messiah and the second person of the Godhead.
I personally, don't choose to buy into your personal, subjective, unproven hunches about a neutered, limited, god constrained by the whims and caprice of humans. If you want to align with that powerless god, who you can impose your hunches on, go right ahead. Just stop pretending like your hunches are the only possibly, objectively, correct response.
Of course, you nullify everything before by qualifying your idiocy with "it seems so", and the appeal to numbers logical fallacy.
I'm going to note something interesting here. Dan agrees with the point of the post. Dan is clear that his gospel is about "transformation", not tolerance. He just insists on a very limited and specific transformation, and that his gospel is intolerant only of those (like himself) who are wealthy and don't "sell all" they have and "give it to the poor".
Dan is quite clear that the Gospel, as Dan thinks is clearly found in Jesus teachings, is about GRACE. Grace, in turn, is transformational, but the Gospel is not about transformation.
Just to be clear.
Indeed. I was going to comment on the last comment of his regarding again framing the narrative on wealth, as if Jesus had patience for other seemingly unrepentant sinners.
The only way Dan could be right is, as you note, to disagree with Jesus, Paul, The Apostles, and the entire OT sacrificial/atonement system. But it's much more likely that Dan is right than any of those.
Exactly, as I noted, Jesus drove off the crowds that followed Him looking for free food. Which, if one believes Dan, was not actually a miracle,didn't really happen, and means that Jesus deceived the crowds.
Well, if Dan says so, then Dan's hunches must be uncritically accepted as True.
You literally just offered your three proof texts as proof that transformation was literally the point of your gospel. Your literal focus of your gospel is "the rich" transforming themselves by giving away their wealth, and the poor being transformed through some nebulous "welcome" into some nebulous "community" where they are accepted without transformation or repentance. You are clear, don't worry.
Quite clear, if ambiguity can be synonymous with "clear".
The Gospel is about repentance and acceptance of Christ's saving sacrifice on the cross.
Which, btw, reminds me of Dan recently his proclaiming Christ as his Savior. Savior from what, exactly?
Craig:
Jesus also had little patience for those who only followed Him for free food, but let's also ignore that.
You keep referring to this and your personal reading/spin on that passage IS ONE way of taking that passage. But it's not the only way.
Along those lines, Craig:
Once again, Dan insists that the only possible measure of anything is whether or not Dan has seen any "data" for whatever is in question. In an earlier comment Dan insists that a few proof texts from Scripture are "literal proof", yet now dismisses Scripture as "data". Whatever.
IF I'm saying (which IS what I'm saying) that this story LITERALLY describes two men following Jesus and abandoning their oppressive livelihood, THEN it is objectively factual that this is what the story is literally saying. HOW do we objectively know? Because we can read the story and see that, IN THE STORY, Matthew leaves behind his livelihood and follows Jesus. Similarly for Zaccheus.
Am I saying that it is objectively PROVEN that this happened exactly like that in the real world? No, I'm literally not. I'm just noting the reality that THAT is how the story literally reads.
You, on the other hand, are offering INTERPRETATIONS of the stories in questions and suggesting these interpretations are literally, objectively proven. That's a different case.
Understand the difference?
My question to you, then, is
Again, if you have objective proof that God objectively personally steps in and makes supernatural miracles happen to stop wars, end disease, stop rapes, etc, I'd LOVE to know about that. That would be cool. I'm noting the reality that I, nor you, nor anyone outside of charlatans have tried to suggest that God has magically healed people, turned tornadoes away, stopped a lion attack or a rape. Or all rapes.
CAN YOU OBJECTIVELY PROVE THAT?
If you're merely saying, "This is literally what the TEXT literally says..." then THAT is objectively true. IF, on the other hand, you are saying (unlike me) that BECAUSE that is what is literally in the text, we objectively know that literally happened just like the story says, that's not objective proof. It's an opinion.
Understand the difference?
And I'm not trying to be condescending. These are just very important distinctions and I don't think you're getting the distinction. But you tell me, Craig.
Craig:
Your problem is not that Jesus didn't fix "everybody" from being "poor and marginalized" it's that He hardly fixed anybody from being "poor and marginalized", nor did He leave behind followers who even attempted to stop large numbers of people from being "poor and marginalized".
Your problem is that you're missing the point, sir. Jesus came to preach a WAY, literal Good news for the literally poor and marginalized. And that WAY was to accept grace and a realm of welcome and love and grace and forgiveness. To the extent that we follow this Way of Grace, we make it increasingly more likely that the poor and marginalized are included and welcomed and literally saved.
To the extent we DON'T follow that Way of Grace, this Good news for the poor and marginalized, then it's LESS likely to happen. And, indeed, this DID and HAS objectively happened over the years. When people are accepting grace and walking in that Way, THEN things get better for the poor and marginalized.
The more we act like Pharisees, living according to legalism and NOT welcoming all/the poor and marginalized, the LESS likely that is to happen.
We've seen it work. We're seeing it work, now. I'm surprised you don't affirm or recognize this.
What was one of the FIRST THINGS that the early church started doing once Jesus was gone? Implement the office of deacons specifically to take care of the widows, the poor, the marginalized, to be their ally and make sure they weren't left out, but were, indeed - as Jesus taught - welcomed and included!
Another of the first things they did was to "share all things in common," to make sure there was enough for all. God's realm come, on earth, as it is in heaven!
Glory hallelujah!
Craig:
You literally just offered your three proof texts as proof that transformation was literally the point of your gospel.
Read my words. I literally did not. I literally said that IN THESE literal stories, we can SEE that at least these people literally accepted grace and as a result, IN THE STORY, their lives were transformed. Nowhere did I say that "transformation was the point of the Good news to the poor and marginalized."
Read for understanding. Look. I'll help you. Here is EVERY INSTANCE of where I said something like "the point is..."
1. "Where the point is NOT "how totally depraved are you?" but "Will you accept grace and join us in this beloved community?"
2. "But any miracles, if miracles they were, are not the point of the stories. In the story of the leper being healed, the point (in the text and greater context of Jesus' literal teachings as understood by the people then) was that Jesus was offering another Way."
3. "We DO know, given the biblical witness, that Jesus had very little patience for/with rich oppressors and religious legalists. On the other hand, we have, I think, zero biblical stories where he was impatient or rude with the typical people if the day... the poor and marginalized, the least of these.
Which has long been my point."
...and that is IT, as far as I can see.
I suspect that this is another instance of you reading and not understanding my point.
Craig...
Which, if one believes Dan, was not actually a miracle,didn't really happen, and means that Jesus deceived the crowds.
Unless I'm misremembering, the text never calls it a miracle. Jesus never called it a miracle. It just happened with no explanation.
Jesus not calling it a miracle is not misrepresentation.
I think that you all (me, once upon a time) think that our traditions and human theories are sacrosanct, and thus, it's easy to get emotionally agitated when someone disagrees with our opinions. Doesn't make it rational or biblical, though.
Marshal:
I was going to comment on the last comment of his regarding again framing the narrative on wealth, as if Jesus had patience for other seemingly unrepentant sinners.
If one reads the gospels, one finds that Jesus NEVER harshly condemned the liars, the thieves, those who were imperfect in their love for their families... even the woman caught in adultery. Jesus harsh ire, in the texts of the Gospels, is reserved for the legalists, the Pharisees, the rich, the oppressors and those who ignored the needs of the poor and marginalized, TO WHOM, Jesus came to preach literal good news.
So, while it's not spelled out, I think the text clearly implies that YES, Jesus DID have great compassion for the typical sinners, the typical misdeeds of humanity, especially the literally poor and marginalized, again, to whom Jesus came to preach literal good news.
Can you find even one text where Jesus harshly rebukes a "typical" sinner (ie, someone other than the rich, the religious legalists and the oppressors)?
Before I dredge through more sewage, I want to make two notes about the original post.
1. The post is literally titled "He Might Be On To Something". I'm not asserting that the author is absolutely correct, but that he MIGHT have a point in contrast with Dan's unproven hunches.
2. Dan is literally agreeing with the final sentence and acknowledging that Jesus is expecting transformation. He only disagrees with what that transformation looks like. Dan asserts that Jesus demands a transformation from wealth to poverty, while the author speaks of a transformation from sin to holiness.
3. Likewise, Dan agrees that Jesus doesn't spend time with "sinners" (as if wealth was the only sin), to show His tolerance and acceptance of their sin (wealth) either.
Unfortunately Dan follows a god who is impotent and unable to actually do anything to bring about this transformation and instead is forced to only rely on imperfect, flawed, humans to achieve his wishes.
All good points/questions.
When Dan twists and turns proof texts into pretzels, it's perfectly fine. When anyone else merely takes the plain text at it's plain meaning, it's "spin", the double standard is strong with this one. Which is why I don't take anything that comes out of Dan too seriously.
"Understand the difference?"
Yes, you put "spin" on the text by reading into the text things what are not there ("leaving their livelihood" does not automatically equal giving everything to the poor. Especially in the context of Jesus not requiring others to do the same and noting that Jesus didn't demand that they "leave their livelihood", nor did he demand that the rich young ruler leave his livelihood. It could be argued that it is implicit in the "Follow Me" to Matthew, but other disciples did not leave their livelihoods at this point, so it's ambiguous at best.), while claiming that I put "spin" on the text by sticking with the simple, direct, plain meaning.
MY RESPONSE TO YOU IS THAT I SEE NO REASON TO ACCEDE TO YOUR DEMAND THAT I PROVE A CLAIM THAT i HAVE NOT MADE. MORE SPECIFICALLY, WHY WOULD I PROVE A CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE MADE AND ATTRIBUTED TO ME?
However, I am sticking to the plain meaning of the text as it is written and reading little or nothing into the text that is not in the plain text.
Yes, I am getting your distinction without a difference. The problem is your lack of self awareness in identifying that you are guilty of what you accuse me of doing.
Craig:
Dan is literally agreeing with the final sentence and acknowledging that Jesus is expecting transformation. He only disagrees with what that transformation looks like. Dan asserts that Jesus demands a transformation from wealth to poverty, while the author speaks of a transformation from sin to holiness.
1. Last part, first: I do NOT/HAVE NOT asserted that Jesus demands a transformation from wealth to poverty. That would be the exact legalism that I think Jesus is clearly speaking about and run contrary to his good news for the poor and marginalized that is realized through love, grace and welcome. Your last claim is simply factually mistaken.
Before moving on: Can you acknowledge that you messed up there, you misspoke and you were mistaken when you made that stupidly false claim? That you now can TELL you were mistaken by the simple fact that I never made that claim?
2. And, as I've clarified and made abundantly clear: I think Jesus' gospel - his good news for the poor and marginalized - is about GRACE, and a result of that grace, that Way of welcome, love, acceptance, forgiveness and community IS transformation. Transformation of lives and ideally, communities and ultimately ideally, states and the whole world.
God's realm on earth, as it is in heaven.
As to the impotent God YOU imagine, I've already pointed to the literally demonstrable, measurable ways that God is changing the world through this beloved community. What is lacking is YOU even addressing your actually impotent god as you have described your god. Apparently, your god is not only NOT about literal good news to the literal poor and marginalized, but your god is not about performing miracles to stop oppression, murders and rapes. IF that is your measure for a powerful God, then isn't it YOUR god who is impotent?
By all means, Craig, provide some objective proof of the way God literally steps in to stop rapes and murders. OR, finally admit you have no objective proof, instead of just ignoring the question.
It's a fair and reasonable question and I will make clear once again, I'd LOVE for you to prove that God is literally stepping in to personally stop rapes and murders and other harms and oppression.
Craig:
you put "spin" on the text by reading into the text things what are not there ("leaving their livelihood" does not automatically equal giving everything to the poor.
I literally have not said that. Can you admit that's a misrepresentation of anything I have said? That is, I never said that Matthew gave everything to the poor. I said what the text says... that when Jesus called Matthew, he left his tax collecting work and followed Jesus. That is LITERALLY what the text says and that's ALL I'm saying.
"and Levi got up, left everything and followed him."
"Jesus saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him."
What does the text say? That Jesus called Matthew, that Matthew got up, LEFT EVERYTHING and followed him.
What does DAN say? That the biblical text says that Jesus called Matthew, that Matthew got up, LEFT EVERYTHING and followed him.
I don't define it. I don't explain it. I don't say what that precisely meant. I DO note that it echoes what Jesus said to the rich young man... NOT exactly, but then, I'm not a legalist who insists on ONE thing, am I? I DO note that when Zaccheus followed Jesus, he gave back to the poor four times (? going from memory) what he had stolen/abused from the working poor and note that it echoes what he said to the rich young man... NOT exactly, but it echoes. And that echoes what Jesus said he'd come to do: Preach good news to the poor and marginalized. And IF the poor are having money returned to them, that IS literal good news.
THAT's what I've said and I'm content with leaving it all unspecified as to the details. Why? I'm not a legalist and think a legalist mind is contrary to the Grace-Way mind.
Understand?
No, I am not missing "the" (singular) "point". I disagree with one of many unproven claims you have made and insisted that this unproven claim was "the point". That you can repeat your conglomeration of vague catchphrases and bullet points as if that makes your hunches True isn't my problem.
You cannot "objectively prove" that your "way of grace" flows exclusively and only through the "poor and marginalized" and that there is something magical about the "poor and marginalized" that the entirety of YHWH's plan hinges on something that Jesus didn't even do to any great extent.
I do see and recognize you acting exactly like the Pharisees and adding demands to Jesus' Gospel and hinging salvation on certain "good works".
It doesn't surprise me that you skip over the actual FIRST THINGS that the Apostles did prayer and teaching in the Temple and replacing Judas, along with the whole Pentecost nonsense, to jump ahead to the appointing of Deacons to help those within the Church who were in need.
Of course that is your problem. You don't seem to be able to comprehend that I'm arguing for a reading of the text, that INCLUDES care for the material needs of people, while you're arguing for a reading of the text that EXCLUDES (or relegates it to a secondary or tertiary effect, but only as it flows through the "poor and marginalized") any call to repentance/transformation/holiness. I'm suggesting that care for the "poor and marginalized" flows out of the salvation/transformation/life in Christ, and is an natural part of the Kingdom of God. You're suggesting that this vague "welcome" and gospel focusing only/primarily on the "poor and marginalized" is part and parcel of what "saves".
I'll stick with inclusive on this topic. You stick with making shit up and attributing it to me as if it represents anything I've said. Then you can win arguments against your straw men.
I did read your words. I read them offering three examples as proof texts, when none of the three examples is the same, and one of them doesn't make your point at all.
1. This is not "the point" is is barely "a point" as it does not represent anything that anyone in this conversation has said. As such it's more of a straw man than an actual "point".
2. By all means, provide objective proof of this claim. By all means, explain the instances where Jesus is clear that His miracles are intended to validate His position and to point people to His Father?
3. We don't "know" that to be 100% absolutely True. We know that Jesus had problems with those who had corrupted Judaism, but less so for those who represented Rome. In fact He submitted to the authority of both the Jewish leaders and Roman leaders. He taught His followers to "give to Rome, what belongs to Rome". He praised the faith of a Roman Centurion as being great and exemplary. He did not demand that the Centurion resign his commission or give away all of his stuff. He didn't even demand that the Centurion free his slaves or servants.
"...as far as I can see."
This might be the single most important phrase in this whole pile of scubala. Because it grounds Dan's above claims of absolute Truth, in the limited, subjective, fallible, imperfect, base of what Dan can "see". The implication that Dan's vision extends far enough to make these sorts of absolute claims seems the height of arrogance and narcissism, while ignoring the reality that Dan could have possibly missed, ignored, or chosen not to see things that would inform his unproven hunches.
Of course, the arrogance and narcissism is very evident in Dan's belief that his explanatory ability is infallible and that the only possible answer is that others aren't able to understand what spews from his vaunted Reason.
Given Dan's inability to make his comments in the sub thread under the comment he is responding to, I am forced to make a choice. I can dig back through a bunch of comments to try t find the reference, or I could just move on.
But, just to try to make sure I understand you. You seem to be saying that if Jesus didn't specifically say "This is a miracle" after He made the blind see/the lame walk/fed well over 5000 from some kid's lunch/cast out demons/healed lepers/forgave sins/raised someone from the dead and all the rest, that those weren't really miracles and that Jesus wasn't misleading people. What an absurd, convoluted, pile of scubala.
While your ridiculous attempt at psycho analysis is appreciated, it is wrong as one would expect when your project your prejudices and preconceptions of us after filtering them through your narcissism and arrogance. Seems like one more time when you should apply your standards and projections to yourself first.
1. If you say so, I'll let your other statements stand. I'll simply note that your entire offer of "proof" rests on three stories that involve transformation.
If it'll salve your tender ego, sure I'll note that I was clearly mistaken in concluding that every single proof text you offered involved some degree of transformation from wealthy to less wealthy. I'm sure that it was just a coincidence. Although I'm not sure that arguing that you believe in a god that doesn't expect transformation is a great look either.
2. Blah, blah, blah, a bunch of buzzwords that all circle back to some sort of action on the part of a human.
What about YHWH's Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven. Starting with the problem this poses for your "heaven doesn't exist" hunch and moving on to the fact that if "Heaven" is exactly like life here on earth, then YHWH has really messed up with the whole thing.
More projection, straw men, and prejudice on display. Yes, I get that you posit a god who is impotent and incapable of transforming things without some vague "beloved community". A god who can accomplish nothing on his own, and simply relies on humans to guess what he wants. I.m picking up what you are putting down.
Again, why would I be required to prove an assertion that I have not made.
As far as objective proof, would you consider a situation which defies the laws of physics to be "objective" enough?
If so, then I'll let you do some research to satisfy yourself that I'm not exaggerating.
If something that weighs between 275-320 pounds was to fall from a height of 165 feet, what would be the force of that object when it hits a solid surface with almost zero compressability?
I find it interesting that the only possible "proof" you seem willing to entertain is that YHWH stops every, single potential rape and murder throughout history. First, you are demanding that I prove that something did not happen, which is impossible. Second, who are you to put arbitrary limits on what YHWH can do?
As such, it is the opposite of "fair and reasonable. Which demonstrates the flaws in your vaunted Reason.
I find the nested comments MORE confusing, not less, especially if you're trying to find a comment and reply. So I post at the bottom where I think it's easier (for all of us) to find.
Craig:
But, just to try to make sure I understand you. You seem to be saying that if Jesus didn't specifically say "This is a miracle" after He made the blind see/the lame walk/fed well over 5000 from some kid's lunch/cast out demons/healed lepers/forgave sins/raised someone from the dead and all the rest, that those weren't really miracles and that Jesus wasn't misleading people.
Thanks for seeking clarity. I appreciate it.
The feeding of the multitudes specifically are not defined as miracles by Jesus or the text. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. I'm saying I don't know (nor do you) and the text does not specify.
Maybe it was a more ordinary miracle... the sort where there's a crowd and a boy decides to share his little bit that he brought with him and then others followed his lead. That would be in fitting with the sort of miraculous grace that Jesus consistently taught.
OR, maybe it's rightly understood as a miracle.
I don't know objectively. YOU do not know objectively. I'm just noting what the text literally does and doesn't say.
My point is that the supernatural events (if that's what they were) are not the main point of these stories and of the Good News to the poor and marginalized. The point was Grace, Community, Welcome, Love. And Jesus criticized those looking specifically for the miraculous.
So, are you saying that "leaving their livelihood" does not mean "selling everything...", or that it is not a transformation in any way?
1. I literally addressed this VERY EXAMPLE in my earlier comment.
2. You literally quoted a verse, then ADDED "LEFT EVERYTHING" to the text you just quoted.
3. That you kind of repeated what I said, then added to the text, isn't the win you seem to think it is.
Except when you do insist on one thing, and It's literally not that similar at all. Jesus called Matthew to a specific course of action, while not calling the rich kid to the same role.
But whatever you say, is what you'll claim is right, regardless.
1. Zaccheus CHOSE to give back, and he didn't limit his restitution to ONLY the "poor" or "working poor" (because you need one more term to make things more confused)
2. Not it literally does not echo anything. Jesus didn't tell the rich kid to give back multiple times what he'd defrauded (there's no mention of fraud or theft), and Jesus didn't tell Zac to give back anything. So other than those two major differences, they're almost identical.
Again, ignoring that Jesus didn't come to preach your gospel exclusively to or exclusively focused on the "poor".
The problem is that you are a legalist who is so convinced that he's absolutely 1005 correct that he's blinded to his own legalism. Yet who is also somehow obsessed with portraying those who disagree with your gospel as "legalists" despite a complete lack of evidence of that claim.
I spoke of God's grace and love and the welcoming beloved community of God. Craig responded:
2. Blah, blah, blah, a bunch of buzzwords that all circle back to some sort of action on the part of a human.
No, that's not what I said. It all comes back to GRACE. God's grace. God's amazing grace. You know, what you referred to as "blah, blah, blah, a bunch of buzzwords..." as if God's amazing grace is just an annoying little mosquito for you to swat at. Shame on you, mortal.
What I am saying, if you read my words, is it all comes back to God's grace, as Jesus taught and demonstrated in his life. It all comes back to that grace acted out as "good news for the poor and marginalized," as Jesus said. Why you feel the need to mock this Grace, which is what I'm speaking of, is beyond me.
Now, I DO believe that humans can choose to reject or embrace Grace. Do you disagree? Do you think grace or salvation is BEYOND human action? That's quite an amazing theory. Can you admit you have no objective proof of that little personal theory you hold?
Craig:
What about YHWH's Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven. Starting with the problem this poses for your "heaven doesn't exist" hunch
I've been quite clear that I DO believe in a heaven. I'm just honest and gracious enough to admit I can't objectively prove some kind of afterlife OR anything about the details of a theoretical afterlife.
Do YOU think you can objectively prove heaven and its details? Or, are you like me, in that you believe in Heaven (as I do) even though you can't objectively prove anything about it?
Well, when you post at the bottom of a long thread then simply do a better job of providing context.
Oh, well, if you say so that settles it.
Maybe you can make stuff up and play pretend. The notion that the only way to know that a miracle was a miracle is if Jesus says "This was a miracle." is ridiculous. I guess the whole Jesus telling His disciples that He'd risen from the dead doesn't meet some other random Dan rule.
I don't care what your point in subordinating Jesus' and the Apostles miracles to fit your narrative is. It's still you imposing your magical rubric on the text for no apparent reason beyond your prejudices. That you arrogantly, pridefully, and narcissisticly declare your "point: to be objectively "The point" is quite the display of chutzpah.
Actually, that's not quite it. But I appreciate your attempt to obfuscate what Jesus said (after your earlier incident of adding words to Jesus) by making a vague, unsourced, out of context, "paraphrased" calm as if it was indisputably fact.
Yeah, Jesus did criticize those who came ONLY for the entertainment, miracles, and free food, because they weren't there for Him. Only what they though He could do for them. But you keep making stuff up. It's entertaining enough.
Craig:
Yeah, Jesus did criticize those who came ONLY for the entertainment, miracles, and free food, because they weren't there for Him.
Well, if you say so... I guess YOU are the one who gets to make that determination, almighty Craig.
Craig opined:
Again, ignoring that Jesus didn't come to preach your gospel exclusively to or exclusively focused on the "poor".
Again, ignoring that this is NOT what I've said. If you can't understand MY words written in the same century and same language, why are you so confident that you understand biblical texts?
To remind you of what I HAVE said: Jesus said, literally, that he'd come to preach literal "good news" (really? Yippee! That's great! You know, good news!) to the literally poor and marginalized.
Does that mean I'm saying that he was only preaching good news only to the poor and marginalized? NO. (Read and understand): THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. You can tell by the way I keep making it clear that this is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying that Jesus' good news BEGINS with preaching good news to the poor and marginalized.
It's that (I suspect: Jesus doesn't tell us WHY he was preaching good news to the poor and marginalized) ...it's that Jesus BEGINS his good news to the poor because THEY are the poor are marginalized. If we have a system, a grace, a Realm of God, that BEGINS with the poor and marginalized, THEN when there needs and concerns are cared for, the rest of us will be living also within that realm of grace OR, we'll have rejected that, as the rich young ruler did.
Craig:
The problem is that you are a legalist who is so convinced that he's absolutely 1005 correct that he's blinded to his own legalism.
So, by rejecting "legalism" and a slavish devotion to follow rules, you theorize that I'm instead, advocating legalism...? Legalism to what? Grace?
Well, yes. That. But then, that's literally not legalism, is it?
Interesting crazy irrational theory you have there. I don't suppose you have one single bit of support for that crazy theory?
No. I didn't think so.
Unless you conflate: "Dan disagrees with Craig and therefore, he's legalist..." as if daring to disagree with your human opinions is somehow legalism???
Come now, sir. Make more rational sense.
Thanks for agreeing that I correctly understood your blather.
"humans can choose to reject or embrace Grace"
Hence your construct comes down 100% to humans engaging in the action of "choosing".
We're not talking about my views on "salvation". I've been clear about mine for years, and that salvation is not a product of any human work or action.
Well, you "believe in Heaven", in that something called "heaven" might exist, but that's it. Impressive.
No, I'm not answering your stupid "objectively prove" questions. They are designed to be unanswerable and even if I did, you'd reject anything I offered.
Yeah, because simply agreeing with Jesus is the problem. I guess that you can't come up with anything original and have to steal my stuff now.
FYI, this is one more thing I recently posted about so it's pretty fresh in my mind.
Thank you for reinforcing my conclusion. When given the opportunity to demonstrate that your gospel is not entirely focused on the "poor and marginalized", you choose to focus on the "poor and marginalized". Then you seem to double down by suggesting that the rest of the world can't be saved until the "poor and marginalized" have all of their "concerns" cared for. Which raises the question of how you could possibly be saved.
Yes you are advocating legalism. Your obsessive demands regarding providing material and political succor to the "poor and marginalized" as the works necessary for "salvation", is absolutely legalism. You're just making different rules, and then being vague and imprecise about what they are.
Based on what you wrote above, describe how an average person in the US (not "poor and marginalized") is saved? Don't simply say "Grace" as if it's one more of your magic incantations, be specific. How does YHWH "offer" "grace", what must be done to accept this "grace"? How many "poor and marginalized" must have their needs met to qualify?
It's interesting that you pretend that I am some sort of "legalist", yet can't actually demonstrate your claim by quoting me, as if this is one more of the magic liberal words (racist, sexist, homophobe, etc) that allow you to defame someone without proof of your claim.
When you just make shit up and pretend that your straw men represent what I've said, it seriously undermines your claims of me not making sense.
Craig:
Then you seem to double down by suggesting that the rest of the world can't be saved until the "poor and marginalized" have all of their "concerns" cared for. Which raises the question of how you could possibly be saved.
Yes you are advocating legalism. Your obsessive demands regarding providing material and political succor to the "poor and marginalized" as the works necessary for "salvation", is absolutely legalism.
I'll repeat: It's NOT about legalism. Legalism is death. Grace is the Anti-legalism.
Thus, we don't say, "You must sell HALF your stuff and give it to the poor... THEN you can be saved..." Nor do we say, "You must sell ALL your stuff and give to the poor to be saved..." We don't lay down ANY hard and fast rules because that is the poison of the legalists.
Nor is it about making sure all the poor have all their needs met. Because why? That would be a legalistic decree and Grace is the Anti-legalism.
It's about this:
I have come to preach literal good news to the literal poor and the marginalized.
Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.
The Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath.
It's about, as I have been endlessly, consistently clear, Grace. Just Grace.
I think this is confusing to Legalists because they then want to know, "But okay, what are the Rules to this Grace Theory of yours..." As if they can't imagine a Beloved Community, a Realm and Way of just grace, love, welcome, acceptance forgiveness, justice. Just Grace.
Craig:
It's interesting that you pretend that I am some sort of "legalist", yet can't actually demonstrate your claim by quoting me
I just went through all instances of the term "legalist" used in this thread and, interestingly enough, not one time did I call YOU a legalist. Indeed, you called ME one and with no support.
What I have done is talk about the legalism of the Pharisees and other rule-followers and talked about how that is, or at least tends to be, counter-grace, in opposition to grace.
Perhaps you're reading my sharing of Jesus' condemnations of the Legalists and Pharisees and reading yourself into Jesus' condemnation and my echoing of Jesus' condemnations? I don't know. That's for you to say. What I can objectively say is that I have not called you a legalist. That was you, accusing me.
Now, a rational, humble, grace-filled man would recognize that, "Oh, I called DAN a legalist and he literally didn't call me one or pretend that I was one. I was literally wrong in that claim. I take it back and apologize..."
That would be the way of Grace, would it not?
Strangely enough, you are the one who brought "legalism" into the whole conversation, by way of your "I'm not a legalist", comment. If you weren't referring to me as a "legalist" (even indirectly) then who?
The problem is that what appears to be legalism on your side, doesn't have anything to do with your implications.
What in interesting construct. You confidently assert that "the rich" cannot be "saved" except as they engage in certain actions regarding the poor, but you then can't/won't explain what you mean. You revel in the ambiguity of what is the "magic %" to give to the poor to be "saved".
I'll give you this, your ability to dance around and sling vague, undefined buzzwords and catchphrases while seemingly contradicting yourself is impressive. You are the one who introduced the whole "legalist" topic into this thread, and you are the one who offered your three proof texts and your conclusion that "selling" and "giving to the poor" were required (or normative). Now you seem to be pulling back and retreating into ambiguity.
None of those proof texts actually tie directly to your hunches about the "poor and marginalized". Even the first which is close, you had to add words to make your point.
You introduced the "legalism" thing, not me. I'm merely pointing out that your hunch contains a degree of legalism as well, it's just couched in ambiguity.
I'm sure that the confusion regarding how much needs to be sold and given away for salvation will be comforting for those trying to follow your gospel.
Craig:
you are the one who brought "legalism" into the whole conversation, by way of your "I'm not a legalist", comment.
That comment from me came up when you accused me of putting a spin on Matthew's words. You said:
you put "spin" on the text by reading into the text things what are not there ("leaving their livelihood" does not automatically equal giving everything to the poor.)
In response and in context, here is what I said:
I never said that Matthew gave everything to the poor. I said what the text says... that when Jesus called Matthew, he left his tax collecting work and followed Jesus. That is LITERALLY what the text says and that's ALL I'm saying...
"Jesus saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him."
What does the text say? That Jesus called Matthew, that Matthew got up, LEFT EVERYTHING and followed him.
What does DAN say? That the biblical text says that Jesus called Matthew, that Matthew got up, LEFT EVERYTHING and followed him.
I don't define it. I don't explain it. I don't say what that precisely meant. I DO note that it echoes what Jesus said to the rich young man... NOT exactly, but then,
I'm not a legalist who insists on ONE thing, am I?
All I was literally doing as you can see in my literal words is noting that I am NOT a literalist. And as a result, are you saying you assumed/guess/read INTO my words that I was talking about you??
In THAT case, I wasn't referring to ANYONE else other than noting that I, MYSELF, am not a legalist, that I don't insist that a text must be understood only one way. If you want to expand it, then it could be counted as in contrast to someone who might insist that a text MUST be understood one way and one way only. But that would be a generic someone.
If you read yourself into that notion (of someone who insists that at least some texts must be understood in only ONE way), then that's you counting that towards yourself. But it was literally not me calling you a literalist or referring to ANYONE as a legalist. Quite frankly, I gave no thought to you at all when I was writing that sentence. Sorry!
If we were speaking about littering and I said, "I am certainly NOT a litterbug..." then that is just me making clear my position and not accusing anyone of anything. But, if a person read that, knew that they do throw trash down sometimes, and felt like they were being accused... well, they weren't, but perhaps their own conscience spoke that to them.
At any rate, YOU were the one who made an accusation towards me of being a legalist. Your literal words and intent. Not the other way around.
Craig said this:
The problem is that what appears to be legalism on your side, doesn't have anything to do with your implications.
"What appears to be legalism on 'my side'..."?? What does that mean? Are you saying that, to YOU, YOU think I've said something that sounds legalistic to YOU? Well, I haven't. But if you are someone who, like me, is strongly opposed to legalism, by all means, point out any place I've said something that strikes you as legalistic and we could consider the evidence.
"the problem is that what appears to be legalism on your side, doesn't have anything to do with your implications. "
I just literally don't know what you're talking about. You think you are reading something from me that, to you, seems legalistic... and it doesn't have anything to do with my implications? I simply don't know what it is that sentence is trying to say. It sounds vaguely accusatory but devoid of any significant context or meaning.
Feel free to explain or not.
As to the whole of your comment that begins with...
What in interesting construct. You confidently assert that "the rich" cannot be "saved" except as they engage in certain actions regarding the poor, but you then can't/won't explain what you mean. You revel in the ambiguity of what is the "magic %" to give to the poor to be "saved".
All I can tell you is that I've never said or implied ANY of the things you've READ INTO my words... words which literally do not say what you've concluded.
* You've taken the text (perhaps much the same way you take some biblical texts),
* read the words saying A, B and C, and
* you've concluded, "Aha! Dan thinks 1, 24.56208 and X2!"
But the reality is that I simply haven't said ANY of the things you've concluded that about what I "said" or "suggested" or "claimed...", etc.
To repeat and be clear:
You confidently assert that "the rich" cannot be "saved" except as they engage in certain actions regarding the poor
I literally haven't said that.
You revel in the ambiguity of what is the "magic %" to give to the poor to be "saved"
I literally haven't said that or suggested that. I HAVE, however, reveled in the grace that is in God's Grace. Grace may well look ambiguous, if one is missing the point or looking for rules.
you are the one who offered your three proof texts and your conclusion that "selling" and "giving to the poor" were required (or normative).
I literally did not say that. I DID cite some passages that said things like that, but I did not say that. Indeed, I noted the "ambiguous grace" (if you want to think of it that way, since it's missing hard/fast rules!) of having different responses to Jesus' call to embrace grace and follow God.
"REQUIRED" is the language of the legalist and, as repeatedly noted, I'm not a legalist.(And that is not me making an accusation about you. IF you want to take up the cause and die on a hill of "required," then YOU might read into that the notion that you are a legalist, but it's not me thinking of you at all.)
the confusion regarding how much needs to be sold and given away for salvation will be comforting for those trying to follow your gospel.
And likewise, I haven't said that. At all.
Again, I suspect that you are someone who has a deep appreciation for rules, at least on some level, and think I need to be making clear rules in my advocacy of Amazing Grace and I'm just not making rules... and perhaps that confounds you? You tell me.
Craig:
You introduced the legalism thing, not me.
I DID, indeed, early on in making a distinction between Jesus' gospel of grace and welcome and love and the PHARISEES and their comrades who were more legalistic in their approach, which is why I refer to the whole of them as Legalists, sometimes.
Here's my first instance of referring to legalism in this post:
I never said all people accept grace. But people CAN choose grace, choose this other Way,
different than the ways of legalism and selfish oppression.
The second instance:
What I have been saying is that the poor and marginalized, the non-elite, the non-religious, women, the sick, the outcasts were huge fans of his (and John the Baptist, before him), because
Jesus was teaching a different Way than that of the legalists and puritans and powerful.
The third instance:
We DO know, given the biblical witness, that
Jesus had very little patience for/with rich oppressors and religious legalists.
And so on. In each instance, I'm making the case for Grace as in opposition to the legalism of the rich and powerful and religious of his day. There's no mention of you in that.
I guess maybe it comes down to this:
Do you agree that Jesus had ongoing disputes between people who were married to a more legalistic and less gracious mindset ("he touched the unclean and broke a rule!" "he healed on the Sabbath and broke a rule!" "his followers harvested grain on the harvest and broke a rule!" "he is eating with the 'sinners' and touching the 'unclean' and breaking rules!!") and that, in contrast, Jesus was offering an alternative to legalism, a way of Grace, a Beloved Community and Realm of God where All are welcome to join in grace, instead?
Or at least, can you see and understand the case I'm making (which is quite biblical and Jesus-centric) and WHY I'm making it, even if you don't ultimately agree? If you can't even understand and see the sense of the case I'm making, then perhaps that's why you're having difficulty wrapping your mind around what I'm actually saying?
This is nonsensical. If one reads the Gospels, one finds that Jesus seeks to bring sinners of all sorts to understand that He is the way they can be reunited with God the Father. The wealth of the sinners is totally irrelevant.
When Jesus pronounces woes (curses) on the rich, the gluttonous, the frivolous and those who bask in popularity during the Sermon on the Plain (Lk 6:20-26), are we to assume He was speaking of one type of person or four types. If the latter, are we to assume only rich people can be gluttonous. I mean, just because one hasn't much to eat, doesn't mean one isn't gluttonous when food is in good supply, right? And is He really speaking of physical hunger or fullness, or something much deeper? YOU need it to be about poverty and wealth, when even back then one didn't need to be filthy rich in order to have a full stomach.
And what of "laughing now"? Do only the ultra wealthy find carnal pleasures in life, or just do so more often due to their bucks? You want to believe this isn't speaking of a different kind of joy than what is the result of superficial comedy and pleasure?
And certainly you don't believe that only the wealthy have people speaking well of them, do you?
You would suppose these things are merely rebukes of the wealthy and powerful, because that appeals to your marxist nature.
And Matt disputes your position as well:
Matt 5:19-22. Are you really prepared to say only the wealthy were prone to the behaviors Jesus rebukes in this passage? Really? In what alternative universe are only the wealthy breaking commandments, or are only the wealthy less righteous than the Pharisees and teaches of the law, or are angry with his brother?
Mt 6:1-6, 16-18. Is it only the wealthy and the "legalists" who at that time were guilty of doing acts of righteousness in public so everyone can see it and thereby prance about as "a good man"? Really?
Mt 6:24-34. How is this not a rebuke of those most likely to be overly concerned with not having stuff?
I could go on...
Didn't Jesus rebuke His own Apostles for their cowardice during a storm at sea? Didn't He rebuke Peter in predicting Peter would disown Jesus three times? Didn't He bluntly rebuke the unbelief of those who seek a sign? Didn't Jesus rebuke the men of Nazareth for their disbelief and warns them that they will not receive God’s blessings? I don't recall Nazareth being known as the Martha's Vineyard of Judea.
Jesus rebuked sinners. Period. The wealth or status of the sinner was irrelevant as it is now.
Gotcha, you brought the topic of legalism up. Thanks for clarifying that I was accurately remembering how things went.
That you brought up legalism in response to my comment about your putting spin on things seems bizarre and unrelated. But whatever, I understand that's how you roll.
But, yes, I did point out that you have a legalistic attitude towards your hunches. When your starting point is that your hunches are correct and "rightly understood", of course you end up with some legalistic attitudes.
Given your insistence that no one else can possibly understand English or comprehend your wisdom, it makes it very obvious when you have problems understanding English,
It means, that your gospel insists that salvation hinges or flows through (primarily or only) the "poor and marginalized" it naturally brings some level of legalism with it. In your case it comes out in your bragging about how many good works you do with the "poor and marginalized" and your disbelief that any of the rest of us do as much as you do. That you don't have the courage to actually establish the limits of what you think is good enough, doesn't mean that they aren't there.
The implication of your "poor and marginalized" gospel (at least as you've vaguely explained it) is that anyone who doesn't follow your hunch on this (as vague and undetailed as your hunch is) is somehow wrong. That your hunch is so vague and undetailed, means that you are the only one who gets to determine if others are doing things as well as you are. That it is impossible to live up to an unknown standard is a problem for anyone who wants to follow your hunch.
Unless, you are positing that there is no standard, no way to determine if one is "saved" or not. That it's all just a matter of being a "good" person and hoping that you've done enough "good works" to be "saved".
I'm merely pointing out the logical conclusion of your "salvation" is inseparable from how you treat the "poor and marginalized" hunch.
It's cute that you really seem to think that it is impossible for you to be even the tiniest bit legalistic about your hunches.
What I've had to do is to take the vague hints and incomplete glimpses you've dropped about your hunches and to attempt to fill in the blanks. If you can't/wont articulate a coherent explanation of how your hunches work, don't blame others for trying to take the crumbs and vague hints and do so on your behalf.
For example, when you cherry pick 3 proof texts as the foundation of your hunch (I've concluded that they are foundational because they're the ones you use often), and insist that the common thread is "sell some/all of your stuff and give to the poor", you can understand the confusion that results from you now saying that you don't mean that at all.
Again, to use your three proof texts as an example. If Jesus "required" all three to "sell their stuff and give it away" (as you seem to imply), why would you not conclude that the "requirement" to do so is not universal?
I'm not looking for "rules" as much as a coherent, direct, specific, explanation as to how your gospel works in practice. Not the gobbledygook about inviting, and tables, and whatever. The simple, direct, straight answer you would give to someone who asked you, "What must I do to be saved?".
I'm not wasting time with this repetitive, off topic, verbal vomit of paraphrased proof texts and random nonsense.
I'll say this to answer your question.
No, I do not agree that Jesus had an ongoing dispute with The Law. He did seem to have a problem with those who perverted or added to The Law, while simultaneously having an unwavering commitment to The Law and to His place in fulfilling The Law. He strangely enough commended those who kept the law and encouraged His followers to do the same.
I completely understand why you are making the case that The Law/rules/requirements have no place in your gospel. I simply am convinced that you have your own rules (vague, imprecise, subjective, and unspecific as they might be), that govern your gospel, but that you don't recognize them as rules. I suspect that you couch these things by labeling them as "reality", or "self evident" or whatever.
Craig...
No, I do not agree that Jesus had an ongoing dispute with The Law.
Fine, that's all fine. But that was not my question.
My question was, do you agree that Jesus had an ongoing dispute with the legalists, the Pharisees, the "teachers of the law..." those who placed rules over grace?
Do you understand the question being asked and why there is a distinction?
Craig:
I simply am convinced that you have your own rules (vague, imprecise, subjective, and unspecific as they might be), that govern your gospel, but that you don't recognize them as rules.
I GET that this is your opinion, in spite of my very clear words. That it is your opinion in spite of my correcting you is just evidence that your need for rules and laws in your own part makes you look for it in others and it appears to confound you when they don't have the rules you seek.
No rule but grace. No law but love.
And when you ask, But HOW shall we be saved?? My most direct and clear answer is By God's Grace. And if you ask, but HOW does that grace play out? HOW does God manage to forgive sinful people? Is it by "paying" for our "sins" with a "blood payment..."? My answer is that it's just the same as with us:
We love because we love;
we forgive because we love and thus choose to forgive;
are gracious just to be gracious as opposed to legalist.
There are no rules, just grace. If you wish to be more precise, there are no rules, just the Way of Grace, of Love, of Forgiveness, or Welcome. And that "way" is not a legalistic bunch of rules about how specifically to love... how to honor the sabbath... (How many steps can we take? What does food preparation need to look like? HOW do we specifically love, honor the Sabbath, exhibit grace??? What are the rules!!???). It's a Way, an attitude, a Grace-as-action. It's not a bunch of rules, deadlines, details. When you get bogged down in rules, you start missing the grace.
More...
Craig referred to my thoughts on "salvation..."
It means, that your gospel insists that salvation hinges or flows through (primarily or only) the "poor and marginalized" it naturally brings some level of legalism with it.
There are 14 instances of the word Salvation in this thread. They are almost all YOU using the word, with a couple of instances of me referring to YOUR use of the word and me pointing to grace, not salvation.
Likewise, in the OT, the way Salvation is used, almost (if not entirely) completely, is speaking about God saving God's people FROM OPPRESSION, from the enemy, from poverty and ruin. Much like Jesus and Isaiah's "Good news for the poor and marginalized" and the notion of taking that fairly literally... What is salvation for a people enslaved? Being freed. What is salvation for those oppressed and abused by the rich and powerful? An end to that oppression.
It's a very practical Way of Grace, not a "plan" of "salvation..." at least not in the OT. But what of the NT? Where and how did Jesus refer to salvation?
The Gospel writers used the term "salvation" six times in Luke and once in John. Seven times.
The first THREE of those is when Zechariah sings his Magnificat. It's speaking of physical salvation from oppression... From "our enemies and those who hate us."
The fourth one is Simeon's prayer of rejoicing about the baby Jesus.
The fifth time is John the B's preaching about this New Way and the savior coming to teach/bring that new way. (and John is, of course, quoting Isaiah when he says this).
The SIXTH time the term comes up in the Gospels is finally Jesus saying it. And you know why he uses that term? When Zaccheus repents and joins Jesus and returns stolen wealth to the poor, Jesus says that "Today, salvation has come to the house of Zaccheus!" Again, referencing a specific release from harm and salvation from harm, at least in part.
The final time in the Gospels is when Jesus speaks of salvation to the hated Samaritan woman, an outsider to the Jews of the day. He speaks of a coming day of salvation "from the Jews," oddly enough.
more...
To be fair, Jesus did use the term "saved" more often and I don't have time to go into that right now. The point is, Jesus didn't teach so much about "salvation," he taught about the Realm of God, and how all are welcome to the realm of God and, sometimes, about how hard it is for the rich to be "saved" because they don't accept the welcoming, gracious way of the Realm of God.
Likewise, for me. I don't talk about salvation so much. I talk about Grace and the Beloved community, the realm of God. I do this because I'm a follower of Jesus and I aspire to be an imitator of Christ. And in Jesus, we find a story that is very consistently the story of the TWO ways of living life. The way of Legalism and the Way of Grace, welcome, love, forgiveness. The latter is not one governed by rules (and as Paul makes more clear later, if we're relying on Rules, we're missing the grace... We are a people of Grace, not Rules, for rules and legalism lead to death, but grace leads to Life).
That's all for now. Just offering something to maybe point out why you are confused by my positions. Perhaps because I'm talking about a salvation by grace for all that is foreign to your notions of salvation for a few.
"What does the text say? That Jesus called Matthew, that Matthew got up, LEFT EVERYTHING and followed him."
What does "LEFT EVERYTHING" mean? These two words appear only in Luke and not in Matthew or Mark (John doesn't mention the calling of Matthew). It doesn't specify whether Matthew left all his worldly possessions, or simply left his work, as he was in his tax booth when Jesus came a'callin'. The latter seems more likely given they later dined at Matthew's house, which suggests he didn't leave everything, as if to impoverish himself.
This, then, demands clarification regarding what "follow Me" meant at the time. Does it mean do not provide for one's self, leaving provision to God? Perhaps, but while Jesus was "financed" by others, I would suppose that it wasn't immediate, and those Apostles had income sources might have still availed themselves of their work, at least initially. A couple of His Apostles were followers of John the Baptist. Had they left all their wordly possessions to do so then?
Given two Gospels don't include those words, I wouldn't feel compelled to include it either, as if it has some significance of greater import than simply Matthew leaving everything at his job to follow Jesus. I can't help but wonder if there is some typical socialist intent on Dan's part for choosing the Luke version over the other two, and in doing so is injecting his preferred interpretation in order to push his narrative.
The "case" Dan makes is predicated on a socialist perspective injected into the text. Dan demands that the Gospel be a "rich vs poor" Gospel, when there is nothing in any Gospel which indicates that's even close to the truth. Regardless of Christ's concern for the poor, His greater concern...His purpose...was to bring all sinners to the Father. OUR concern for the poor is not but a small piece of His message, and hardly the most important.
Craig:
Again, to use your three proof texts as an example. If Jesus "required" all three to "sell their stuff and give it away" (as you seem to imply), why would you not conclude that the "requirement" to do so is not universal?
I did not say nor imply that Jesus required all three to sell their stuff and give it away and so, I have not said or implied that "requirement" is univeral.
Requirements are of legalism, not of grace. And, once again, I'm not a legalist.
And to address something along those lines, where you asked why I would not admit that I could be legalistic. (or something like that). I CAN be legalistic. I HAVE been legalistic. But those are failures of my ideals. Because, as noted, I'm NOT a legalist... that is not my belief system. I fall into the old ways of legalism sometime, but it's not what I promote or hold to as an ideal. Any legalism that comes out of me is my imperfection, not my ideals.
Fortunately, as one who believes in grace, I do not believe we are to be condemned for failures to be perfect or when we "miss the mark," as sin literally means. Thank God for Grace.
Dan is clearly overlaying the rich/poor, oppressor/oppressed narrative over Jesus ministry in ways that the text does not demand. It absolutely leaves out the who reason why John and the angel said that Jesus was coming.
That actually is the question, isn't it. If Dan has his way, it means that Matthew sold everything and gave it to the poor, but the text doesn't automatically support that. As Luke was the last of the synoptics written, and both Matthew and Luke drew on Mark, I'd be willing to suspect that Mark and Matthew are probably less open to additions.
The follow Me thing is interesting. At that time various Rabbis had their disciples who followed them around to learn from them. Yet traditionally Rabbis were (as we say now) dual career. So it seems reasonable to conclude that the follow me thing didn't preclude maintaining some source of income. I wouldn't get dogmatic either way.
I suspect that Dan likes Luke better because it is the Gospel which is worded in a way as to be in more agreement with Dan's preconceived notions, but who knows.
To be fair, when I hear of someone making their "case", I tend to think of something a little more direct and specific than Dan has offered. Buzzwords, catchphrases, ambiguity, and the like don't seem auspicious for a "case" being made.
"Do you understand the question being asked and why there is a distinction?"
Since I answered that question, AND expanded on my answer, it should be obvious that the answer to THIS question is yes.
I have no idea what your point in drawing a distinction was, but my point in drawing a distinction is that The Law is from YHWH and isn't harmed or diminished by those who pervert or add to it. Jesus clearly had no problem with The Law or His role regarding The Law. Jesus clearly affirmed The Law, clarified that The Law was more then "Don't murder", as well as fulfilled it.
"No rule but grace. No law but love."
Which, of course, is a rule/law. Lust like "No Creeds" is a creed.
Which is strange, given that Jesus seemed pretty clear about the fact that The Law was still a thing to be obeyed, gave His followers "rules", and said that the demonstration of love was to "keep His commandments". Sorry, but that doesn't sound like the free-for-all you're blathering about.
I seriously pity anyone who would ever ask you how to be saved, because what you just is confusing.
I'll note your baby/bathwater attempt there. That the Sabbath law had been expanded and perverted over the centuries, doesn't mean that the underlying Sabbath law is somehow done away with.
"No law but love"
What a vague and imprecise bit of nonsense.
Is this love as in "I love pizza", "if you love Me you'll keep my commandments", Greater love has no man...", or "love the Lord Your God with all of your heart, mind, soul, strength"? Does this love ever say no?
I'm using it for several reasons.
1. It's a term used throughout scripture to refer to Israel/The Church/Believers being delivered by YHWH.
2. It is the most common term used throughout most of Christianity currently.
3. As such it is pretty commonly understood.
4. The name Jesus (Jeshua) literlly means YHWH Saves in Hebrew.
5. Given that it's literally Jesus' name, why wouldn't I use the term.
6. John the Baptist was pretty clear that Jesus came to save people from their sins.
I'm not sure what this digression and semantic junk is, but I'm not surprised.
But, on to the excuses and gobbledygook.
To be exceedingly clear, as I apparently haven't been so far.
I'm not asking for you to explain what you would tell someone if they asked YOU what do I need to do to be "saved". I don't need you to waste my time with a BiIble Gateway word search, or with your hunches, I want to know how you would answer that simple question. I a way that a random person would be able to read and know exactly what to do in order to be "saved", and to be assured of their "salvation".
It shouldn't be that hard, but maybe no one would actually think to ask you that question.
Craig said (of, "no law but love...")...
What a vague and imprecise bit of nonsense.
Is this love as in "I love pizza", "if you love Me you'll keep my commandments", Greater love has no man...", or "love the Lord Your God with all of your heart, mind, soul, strength"?
Yes, precisely!
Not sure what you're find vague in any negative way about that!
Craig...
Does this love ever say no?
Yes, of course! You ARE familiar with the concept of love, yes?
Ambiguity is all important in Dan's position. It allows for necessary fluidity when his more moronic claims, assertions, opinions and hunches are met with obvious objection.
And as I just said in my previous comment above, ambiguity is essential to Dan's pretend faith. It's certainly not the "Good News" Jesus proclaimed, that's for sure! "Grace" is a word totally devoid of meaning the way Dan throws it around as if it's the answer to all questions. Yet, he doesn't define that word, anymore than he can explain what the "Good News" is and how it was necessary to deliver it first to poor people. It's all superfluous drivel; insipid and without true substance.
the fifth and sixth time you mention were related to eternal salvation from our deserved punishment. John the Baptist heralds Christ's purpose "Behold the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world!" He wasn't talking about "salvation" from earthly suffering, but from eternal suffering for sin.
Christ is referencing the same with regard to Zaccheus. He was referring to Zaccheus' salvation for repenting and accepting Christ's teachings.
"The final time in the Gospels is when Jesus speaks of salvation to the hated Samaritan woman, an outsider to the Jews of the day. He speaks of a coming day of salvation "from the Jews," oddly enough."
He was speaking of Himself being the Salvation which comes from the Jews, as God the Father had told Abraham. So "from the Jews" did not mean salvation from harm from the Jews, but that true salvation from our deserved punishment would come from Jesus, Who was born of the Jews.
I haven't reviewed the first four you mentioned because the error in citing what followed was so glaring.
"To be fair, Jesus did use the term "saved" more often and I don't have time to go into that right now."
Of course not. It doesn't serve your pseudo-Christianity narrative.
"...Jesus didn't teach so much about "salvation," he taught about the Realm of God,..."
This is absurd. The "Realm of God" is only open to those who are saved. There is no "welcoming" for those who are not.
" I don't talk about salvation so much. I talk about Grace and the Beloved community..."
Of course you don't. You talk about that which falsely promotes the notion that repentance is unnecessary, particularly from your favored sins.
"I do this because I'm a follower of Jesus and I aspire to be an imitator of Christ."
You're a follower of the world and therefore an imitator of some else, but not Christ. A true follower of Christ would not enable sinfulness as you do. A true follower of Christ would not rewrite the commandments of God to one's liking as you do.
"And in Jesus, we find a story that is very consistently the story of the TWO ways of living life. The way of Legalism and the Way of Grace, welcome, love, forgiveness."
This is your self-serving, self-satisfying corruption. The "TWO ways of living life" is to worship the world or worship God. You're of the first category as your "interpretation" allows for willful sinful living, rather than taking up one's cross, repenting and living according to the rules of God you pretend no longer exist.
God's grace does not allow for living by one's own rules if those rules are in conflict with His. There's nothing in Scripture which in any way disagrees with this fact no matter how you inject your corruption into it.
That only "a few" are saved is not what is preached here, but only a statement of a fact Jesus Himself asserted. Salvation from just punishment is available to all is not the same as saying all will be saved.
You legalistically insist that God no longer prohibits homosexuality and the murder of one's own in utero and that the just laws of man need not be obeyed (such as immigration laws, for example). And you legalistically argue that you can rebel against God in this way while pretending you actually believe you might be mistaken about that which cannot be sincerely misunderstood. Your issues are not "imperfection" manifesting. Yours are conscious rejection of the Will of God as it suits you to do so.
Craig:
I want to know how you would answer that simple question.
Embrace grace. Very simple answer to a very simple question.
But, what does that mean? you might ask.
Embrace, the Grace of God as demonstrated and lived out in the life of Jesus. Love the poor and marginalized. Invite them to dinner. Include them, don't exclude them, and include them with love and grace. And include those who are not poor as well. Love them, embrace them, welcome them...
Can you imagine what a really good parent is like? They are loving, welcoming, excited to see you when you stop by their house. If you fall down and skin your knee, they help you up. They give you the good things you need and encourage you to stay away from the bad things you don't need.
That. That sort of warm welcome, love, forgiveness and grace, that is what God's grace is. As demonstrated in the life of Jesus.
All are welcome.
However, if someone is welcomed and they want to harm the poor and oppressed or others who are there, remind them that THEY are beloved and welcomed, just as the poor and marginalized, but that this grace and welcome goes all ways. So, if they can't come and welcome and dine in love with the poor and marginalized, they are welcome to leave and come back when they can leave that harm behind.
You know, just very basic love and grace and welcome as we understand those terms.
Embrace THAT Grace, the grace of God.
It's so generous of you to give Jesus that benefit of the doubt like that. You're right, Jesus name literally means "YHWH Saves", but He wasn't that interested in salvation. I suspect this is one of those situations where you have your pet definition and have assumed that Jesus agrees with you. It's clear that you don't like to talk about salvation, because otherwise you'd have a clear, direct, answer instead of simply repeating a bunch of catchphrases and buzzwords.
To be clear, Jesus repeatedly spoke specifically of the Kingdom of YHWH while never mentioning your "beloved community" or "realm of god". I know that you think that the Kingdom/King language makes you feel icky, but if that language is good enough for Jesus...
You've offered nothing new at all. At best you've made it clear that anyone who asked you how they could be saved, would not get a direct, clear answer. Which is really the only thing I was interested in confirming.
Gotcha, you just insist (even though it's not apples to apples) that those three are the best/only proof texts you can find to back up your hunches.
If, as Jesus said, the only thing that the rich guy lacked in order to receive "eternal life" was to "sell all he had and give it to the poor", how is that not a "requirement? Are you now suggesting that the "selling everything" command was an OPTION? That there was another way he could have gotten "eternal life"? Or are you suggesting that "eternal life" isn't really a thing and that Jesus was just shining him on to get him to sell his stuff?
You have literally and repeatedly drawn a direct linkage to your three proof texts and the "sell/give away" thing, even though they aren't close to the same thing, and your "poor/marginalized" gospel.
But you feel free to keep making up your own gospel.
No, I can't imagine why anyone would see that as vague and imprecise.
I am familiar, I'm just curious abut how you square your "free for all" and "no rules" hunch with a love that says no.
Blah, blah, blah. I devoutly hope that no one ever asks you that question and is left to sort out that pointless, senseless, nonsense.
You say that you would tell them to "follow the life Jesus demonstrated", but then only focus on the parts that fit your preconceived notions.
Strangely enough in your description of "good parents" you've actually described a Golden Retriever. Good parents have rules, they set limits, they don't always affirm everything their children do. I suspect that you as a parent, enforced rules on your children, yet you posit a god (also a "good parent") with absolutely no rules or limits, none of those pesky laws or commandments.
I'll simply note that you ignored the fact that your "no creed but Jesus" is a creed, and your "no law but love" is a law.
Art,
This is a great example of something I've said for a while, that is applicable here. I've often said that no one is a pure pacifist, that everyone has a line that will push them into violence. Likewise, everyone is a legalist to some degree, it's just a question of where you draw the line.
Art,
Yeah, I didn't have time to check those obvious errors out, but the notion that salvation was ONLY from temporal distress is simply foreign to the Scriptures. It's strange that one of the big salvation narratives, The Exodus, is literally a foreshadowing of YHWH implementing His final act of Salvation in Jesus. This is what happens when you fictionalize, mythologize, or reduce that OT to "revenge fantasies", and you miss out on the linguistic connections between things like The Exodus and Jesus death.
It's am easy way to look at the entirety of the Scripture, but ultimately unfulfilling IMO.
Likewise, I'll keep repeating this until Dan acknowledges it, but the name "Jesus" literally means "YHWH saves" and the biblical witness records that the name was given as a command/rule to Mary, by YHWH, through the angel.
Would "biblical witless", be breaking my own rule?
As I'd said earlier, the only difference I can see between the quote in my post and Dan's drivel, is that the quote frames transformation is an absolute necessity, while Dan seems to merely regard it is a suggestion.
Because even going from grace less to "Embrace grace" is an act of transformation, is it not?
The only other difference I can see is that Dan relies on individual human effort and action to achieve this transformation. (The grace is there but it must be embraced to make any difference) While the guy I quoted would likely say that the transformation that happens is a only possible through the finished work of YHWH.
Post a Comment