I’ve been told that the only proper way to interpret scripture is to look at it through a “Jesus lens”. That we must interpret the entire OT through the red letters in the NT. But this seems to ignore a couple of things.
1. That Jesus spoke in and through the OT. Jesus, as the second person of the Godhead, is for all intents and purposes speaking the words attributed to YHWH.
Clearly if you deny that Jesus is the the Logos spoken of in John, or that Jesus is the eternally existent second person of the triune God, you won’t agree with this,
2. Very often when Jesus spoke in the red letters, he starts by saying something like “It is written...”, then He proceeds to quote the OT. At His temptation, “It is written...”, His first appearance in the synagogue He quotes Isaiah 61:1. Which raises the question, if Jesus so frequently referenced the OT on matters of importance, is it possible that we should view Jesus through the lens of the OT instead of the other way around?
I’m also curious about Jesus use of Isiah 61:1. If we’re to accept that He meant v.1 in a wooden literal way, does that mean that He was implying that all of chapter 61 should be treated the same way?
If the answer is no, why the arbitrary cut off?
If the answer is yes, then wouldn’t that change Jesus message?
We have to remember that it’s likely that His audience would have known the entire passage and it seems possible that they could have finished the prophecy in their minds.
It just seems odd that in so many important instances Jesus referred back to Jewish scripture, maybe that’s more important than we might think.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
Monday, September 23, 2019
Climate protesters
Apparently those folx who think that the end is near because the climate is going to end life as we know it have decided that the effective way to protest is to block traffic in DC. Let’s ignore the fact that, if history is any indication, they’ll leave trash everywhere. Let’s focus on the fact that the most inefficient period for a car with an international combustion engine is when its idling. So, they’ve decided that the best way to save the climate is to force thousands of cars to idle, spewing unnecessarily high levels of exhaust into the air.
Then there’s this take.
“White privilege is not having to work on Monday morning so you can stop people in a majority POC city from getting to their jobs.”
Or this.
“Every left wing protest betrays a total contempt for the working class. These idiots never have any compunction about shutting down traffic and preventing normal people from getting to their jobs so they can feed their families.”
Or
“Notice that they’ll organize to impede peoples ability to work...
“It takes a massive amount of cognitive dissonance to fret that climate change will destroy future generations while at the same time openly advocating for the destruction of future generations through abortion. Can I wave off concerns about climate change by insisting that my carbon emissions are my business and any harm they cause to children isn't my problem? Or does that logic only work for abortion?“
“My carbon, my choice.”
It’s not wrong.
Then there’s this take.
“White privilege is not having to work on Monday morning so you can stop people in a majority POC city from getting to their jobs.”
Or this.
“Every left wing protest betrays a total contempt for the working class. These idiots never have any compunction about shutting down traffic and preventing normal people from getting to their jobs so they can feed their families.”
Or
“Notice that they’ll organize to impede peoples ability to work...
But they won’t organize to clean up 50 tons of trash from the streets like MAGA people did!
They really protest for socialism, not cleaning the environment, otherwise they’d put on some gloves!”
Or
“My carbon, my choice.”
It’s not wrong.
Friday, September 20, 2019
The Iron Range
i saw a CNN story whet they sent a reporter up to the iron range expecting that the DFL stronghold would give them all sorts of great anti Trump material. Yet, it didn’t work as well as they thought. I guess the problem is that people aren’t likely to vote for a party that wants to eliminate the industry they’ve been employed in for years, as opposed to a party that doesn’t want to eliminate their jobs.
I’ve thought for a few years that the DFL has abandoned the blue collar, union members who have unquestioningly voted DFL for decades, to curry favor with more fringe elements of the left.
What I’m wondering is if this shift to the left might inadvertently re elect Trump. What if the rhetoric and positions of the left aren’t as broadly appealing as they think? What if gaining the votes of the environmentalists, loses the votes of the blue collar union types?
I learned in 2016 not to predict elections, but I’m looking forward to seeing how 2020 plays out. I really think that it’s possible that what we’re seeing on the DFL debate stages just might sway enough people like me, as well as enough undecided voters away from the DFL and towards the GOP/Trump.
As always, time will tell.
I’ve thought for a few years that the DFL has abandoned the blue collar, union members who have unquestioningly voted DFL for decades, to curry favor with more fringe elements of the left.
What I’m wondering is if this shift to the left might inadvertently re elect Trump. What if the rhetoric and positions of the left aren’t as broadly appealing as they think? What if gaining the votes of the environmentalists, loses the votes of the blue collar union types?
I learned in 2016 not to predict elections, but I’m looking forward to seeing how 2020 plays out. I really think that it’s possible that what we’re seeing on the DFL debate stages just might sway enough people like me, as well as enough undecided voters away from the DFL and towards the GOP/Trump.
As always, time will tell.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
What in the name of holy shrubbery?
“Today in chapel, we confessed to plants. Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor.
“
What do you confess to the plants in your life?”
It would seem that the seminarians of tomorrow think that confessing to a potted fern is somehow a healthy spiritual practice. If your potential pastor’s resume says he went to Union Seminary, don’t waste your time with an interview.
FYI, even if this isn’t as monumentally stupid as it sounds on Twitter, the fact that someone thought posting it was a good idea is still disqualifying.
A few more problems with the rough draft.
"Then Jesus said to her, “Your
sins are forgiven.”
The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” [Simple living/contrasting Jesus' gospel/way that associates with the poor and marginalized vs the world's or the Pharisee's way]"
Jesus clearly says "Your sins are forgiven." and "Your faith has saved you.".
How does one possible get from "Your sins are forgiven" to You need to live simply? It's a non sequitur, there is literally nothing in this exchange that necessitates or even encourages this conclusion.
Now, a simplistic, woodenly literal, reading of the story that precedes this exchange might lead some to think this is about money, yet where does Jesus mention money to the woman? In fact Jesus commends her for "wasting" expensive perfume by using it to wash His feet. Again, I'd love to see some evidence to support this novel reading of this exchange.
"The Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Again we see Jesus state clearly and plainly that He has "come to call...sinners to repentance." There is no evidence in either the text or the context that demands that this statement be construed as applying to anyone but "sinners". There is certainly nothing that demands that the "healthy/doctor" reference be taken in a woodenly literal sense, yet somehow that's exactly what we see here.
"The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Somehow the possibility that Jesus was referring to Himself as The Son of Man", and that that plus the claim to be "Lord of the Sabbath", as a way of expressing His divinity and that His authority trumps that of the religious leaders, is never even offered as a possibility.
"He replied, “You give them something to eat.” [providing food for the hungry]"
This is a clever bit of bait and switch in two ways. First, it implies that "the hungry" were poor people who had limited or no access to food, as opposed to people who were son engrossed in Jesus teaching that they chose to miss a meal (or meals). Second, given the anti supernatural bias present in other interactions, I suspect that the miraculous nature of the actual feeding would be minimized or explained away were it even addressed. This also addresses the fundamental flaw in "The Kingdom of God is primarily for the poor" construct. If Jesus could have fed thousands of people on certain occasions, then why was He so stingy the rest of the time?
Pointing these problems out should be a great opportunity to take the time to do the broad research needed to do this topic justice.
I pointed out elsewhere that I downloaded a PDF of a book which lists the sayings of Jesus at around 1900, and in it's categorizations doesn't even have a category for "poor and marginalized" or something similar. The questions that raises is, who's wrong?. I'm not making any claims, but from what I've read, the authors of the book have done a lot more research.
The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” [Simple living/contrasting Jesus' gospel/way that associates with the poor and marginalized vs the world's or the Pharisee's way]"
Jesus clearly says "Your sins are forgiven." and "Your faith has saved you.".
How does one possible get from "Your sins are forgiven" to You need to live simply? It's a non sequitur, there is literally nothing in this exchange that necessitates or even encourages this conclusion.
Now, a simplistic, woodenly literal, reading of the story that precedes this exchange might lead some to think this is about money, yet where does Jesus mention money to the woman? In fact Jesus commends her for "wasting" expensive perfume by using it to wash His feet. Again, I'd love to see some evidence to support this novel reading of this exchange.
"The Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”
Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Again we see Jesus state clearly and plainly that He has "come to call...sinners to repentance." There is no evidence in either the text or the context that demands that this statement be construed as applying to anyone but "sinners". There is certainly nothing that demands that the "healthy/doctor" reference be taken in a woodenly literal sense, yet somehow that's exactly what we see here.
"The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Somehow the possibility that Jesus was referring to Himself as The Son of Man", and that that plus the claim to be "Lord of the Sabbath", as a way of expressing His divinity and that His authority trumps that of the religious leaders, is never even offered as a possibility.
"He replied, “You give them something to eat.” [providing food for the hungry]"
This is a clever bit of bait and switch in two ways. First, it implies that "the hungry" were poor people who had limited or no access to food, as opposed to people who were son engrossed in Jesus teaching that they chose to miss a meal (or meals). Second, given the anti supernatural bias present in other interactions, I suspect that the miraculous nature of the actual feeding would be minimized or explained away were it even addressed. This also addresses the fundamental flaw in "The Kingdom of God is primarily for the poor" construct. If Jesus could have fed thousands of people on certain occasions, then why was He so stingy the rest of the time?
Pointing these problems out should be a great opportunity to take the time to do the broad research needed to do this topic justice.
I pointed out elsewhere that I downloaded a PDF of a book which lists the sayings of Jesus at around 1900, and in it's categorizations doesn't even have a category for "poor and marginalized" or something similar. The questions that raises is, who's wrong?. I'm not making any claims, but from what I've read, the authors of the book have done a lot more research.
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
I'll leave this here
https://chab123.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/does-the-old-testament-endorse-slavery-an-overview-paul-copan/
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
It’s things like this
“I'm saying yes, it was a central, pivotal theme. That, indeed, if you miss that central Jesusian way of looking at "salvation" in terms of wealth, poverty, oppression and the marginalized, you are likely to miss the point of the Jesus story. As we go through this quickly, keep in mind to look for... Who the message is for (the poor and marginalized, over and over)?”
In the absence of anything else, it’s reasonable to believe that Dan’s view of the gospel is that “salvation” is primarily and centrally related to issues of “wealth, poverty, and oppression”. So it seems that the shorthand references that have been used aren’t all that far off.
When I have time and a computer, I’ll move all the comments from the other thread. It’ll eliminate the distractions from the other thread. Until, do so I’ll be leaving comments in moderation so as to preserve the context.
In the absence of anything else, it’s reasonable to believe that Dan’s view of the gospel is that “salvation” is primarily and centrally related to issues of “wealth, poverty, and oppression”. So it seems that the shorthand references that have been used aren’t all that far off.
When I have time and a computer, I’ll move all the comments from the other thread. It’ll eliminate the distractions from the other thread. Until, do so I’ll be leaving comments in moderation so as to preserve the context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)