"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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
97 comments:
Re: the sinful woman at the Pharisees house. I count this as economic in the sense that you're dealing with two contrasting characters here.
You have the well-to-do, well-placed Pharisee who is respectable and has plenty. And you have the so-called harlot who was marginalized as sinful, impure, not accepted, ostracized, and exploited. Her poverty is what led her to her prostitution... typically, anyway.
But of the two - the wealthy respected man of position and Power, and the poor marginalized woman - Jesus commends the woman.
Here you have Jesus, as always, siding with the poor and marginalized. How am I mistaken?
Did you know that most people in Jesus time and most of his followers rapport a marginalized?
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222016000400046
In your first comment, you start by arbitrarily categorizing two of the characters based completely on your assumptions about their economic positions. Clearly the woman had the financial means to afford expensive perfume.
Then you ignore what Jesus says. He doesn’t “commend” her for her presumed poverty, or for her profession, He commends her for her repentance and her attitude. He doesn’t give her cash, He forgives her sins. Further, He rebukes His host because He didn’t wash Jesus feet or treat Him as an honored guest. Jesus never once mentioned wealth, money, or anything remotely related to those things.
You’re you’re mistaken in that Jesus sides with the repentant. He does absolutely nothing to alleviate her presumed poverty, and He encourages her to “waste” something of great value.
But you keep cramming things in the boxes you want them is regardless of the text or the context.
Your second comment doesn’t make any sense. Maybe if I look at the link it’ll help.
Your link seems to be pointing out the obvious that most people in the 1st century Middle East lived in a subsistence and barter economy. That’s obvious and of passing interest, but I fail to see how that relates to your point.
Unless you’re suggesting that a primarily agrarian, subsistence, barter economy is the goal believers should strive for.
As we see within a few short years of Jesus death, Christianity spread from that culture throughout much of the known world, away from its 1st century beginnings.
In fact, Jesus Himself commands such a spreading of The Gospel, strangely enough, when He commissions His disciples He never mentions “the poor”. When He appears to Saul to “commission” him, again “the poor” are conspicuously absent.
FYI, I’m going to use “the poor” as a shorthand for all the random categories you’ve thrown out. It’s easier and makes the point.
That’s obvious and of passing interest, but I fail to see how that relates to your point.
The point is that most people were poor and Jesus was speaking to The People in that context. Failing to recognize that Jesus followers were simple folk largely from the poor and marginalized crowd is to fail to understand the context. Failing to keep that context in mind is to risk misunderstanding WHO Jesus was addressing and why. It risks failing to miss the point of why it was significant that Jesus came SPECIFICALLY to preach Good News to the poor. We must always keep in mind the text and the context. I would imagine you'd agree to that basic bit of critical literary study procedure.
Craig...
Then you ignore what Jesus says. He doesn’t “commend” her for her presumed poverty, or for her profession, He commends her for her repentance and her attitude.
I didn't ignore it. I just began with the obvious context, that she was from the poor and marginalized crowd. Yes, she DID acquire some wealth to have that perfume, presumably, BUT she acquired that wealth from out of her marginalization and poverty. We must understand that as a starting point.
Do you recognize that she was from the poor and marginalized crowd, the "outsiders" not welcome to the realm of the Pharisees and religious?
Craig...
Then you ignore what Jesus says. He doesn’t “commend” her for her presumed poverty, or for her profession, He commends her for her repentance and her attitude.
Given the rational contextual starting point that this woman was from the poor and marginalized crowd (and I'm fine with using "poor" as a shorthand way of referring to all the poor and marginalized groups Jesus specifically came to preach the good news specifically to), then it becomes significant that Jesus is prepared to recognize her repentance. In the Pharisees realm, such people were outsiders and had to be "made clean" before they could consider repenting and getting into their "realm..." which they conflated with the realm of God.
Jesus stands in stark contrast to that worldly, religious realm, offering a realm where forgiveness was offered here, now for even the poor and marginalized... the ones who were excluded in the Pharisee's realm.
Does that not make sense?
Craig...
Then you ignore what Jesus says. He doesn’t “commend” her for her presumed poverty, or for her profession, He commends her for her repentance and her attitude.
Then you ignore what I was doing. I was taking ALL the words of Jesus (well, from Luke 1-19) and doing a huge overview of the whole of that text, looking for themes. I was not trying to comment a complete study on the forgiven woman at the house of the Pharisee. I was just noting that, in that context, Jesus' teachings/words had direct economic/outsider implications, and thus, fit in with words of Jesus that touch on wealth and poverty.
Perhaps it will help you understand my exercise if you think of it as me reviewing Jesus' words that touch on themes of wealth, poverty and "the outsiders" versus "the insiders..." i.e., the wealthy, powerful elite religious who "owned" religion and morality and who, using their wealth and power, tried to make themselves the de facto "owners of god and morality..."
The fact that Jesus spoke to the people in the geographic area where He engaged in His ministry isn’t news. Yet He clearly didn’t exclude people based on income. Of course Jesus preached The Gospel to those who would listen, that doesn’t prove that the poor have a priority. You are right that failing to take context into account is a problem for you.
I I realize that you presume much more than you can prove about the woman’s background. Then you compound that by admitting that she had at least some “wealth” and trying some convoluted “her wealth proves she was poor” construct with no actual basis.
In the context of the actual story, it makes no sense. It presumes facts not in evidence . It ignores the fact that Jesus never once commended her poverty, not condemned the man’s supposed wealth.
Now if you want to argue that the host felt that the woman was unclean because of her profession, and Jesus forgave her sins to prove His authority and to point out the flaws of the hosts theology, then you might have a point that the text supports.
But to inject wealth into a situation where wealth isn’t mentioned is eisigesis,
This also raises the questions.
Did Jesus actually forgive her sins?
Did Jesus have the authority to do so?
Where did He get the authority?
If Jesus really came to primarily alleviate the material suffering of the poor, and to establish a new political system, why didn’t He?
How did forgiveness of sins help the woman’s poverty?
So, you don't get it. Got it. I tried.
Your questions only demonstrate that you are missing the point of the Good News to the poor, that Jesus said he came specifically to deliver. Your questions only demonstrate that you are missing the point I'm actually making. You ask irrelevant questions and miss the point of Jesus words.
May your eyes be opened.
No, I understand what you were trying to do. I’m simply pointing out areas of your rough draft that maybe don’t fit the actual context. The fact that you can spin a yarn that seemingly fits the construct you’ve invented.
How can you spin this in a way that makes it ok to get the details wrong as long as the whole fits your narrative. If you’ve gotten the details wrong, then it calls the entire narrative into question.
But if you think that not testing your rough draft against all reasonable questions, but instead to test it against those who agree with you, just say that plainly. That it’s too much to have people point out potential problems and ask difficult questions. It’s okay to admit it.
Ah! Maybe this will help. You said...
Yet He clearly didn’t exclude people based on income. Of course Jesus preached The Gospel to those who would listen, that doesn’t prove that the poor have a priority.
You've got it ass-backwards. Jesus' gospel is a gospel of WELCOME, not exclusion. Thus, I'm not saying and the text is not saying that Jesus "excluded people based on income." THAT was the "gospel" of the realm of the pharisees, which they conflated with god's realm.
Jesus gospel, and follow closely here, WAS A GOSPEL THAT SPECIFICALLY AND LITERALLY INCLUDED THE POOR AND MARGINALIZED..., those who were excluded from the gospel of the realm of the pharisees. Thus, the poor CLEARLY did have a priority of sorts. He BEGAN his call to the welcome table with the poor and marginalized. Why? Because his gospel of the realm of God was an inclusive Gospel for ALL, specifically and literally the poor and marginalized, who WERE excluded from the Pharisees' gospel. WHY does he begin with specifically the poor and marginalized and spell it out specifically, literally? Because they were the ones who were excluded. Jesus' gospel is a gospel of grace, of welcome, of justice and it therefore MUST BEGIN with those who were excluded from grace and justice.
Help any? I doubt it, but hopefully so.
How can you spin this in a way that makes it ok to get the details wrong as long as the whole fits your narrative
You have not successfully pointed out that I have gotten ANY details "wrong." That my conclusions don't match your presumptions is not a sign that I'm wrong on the details.
Understand? You are not the final arbiter of which details are right and wrong, and certainly not when you're operating from a place of mistake on your part.
I’m simply pointing out areas of your rough draft that maybe don’t fit the actual context. The fact that you can spin a yarn that seemingly fits the construct you’ve invented.
1. I've "invented" nothing. This is an understanding that has been noted for centuries, if not since the beginning of the church. I'm not unique in noting Jesus' "preferential option for the poor." Nor that Jesus is speaking to poor and marginalized people. Indeed, it is straight from the text ("I have come to preach good news TO THE POOR..." When John asked Jesus if he was for real, Jesus noted, "Tell John that the POOR have the gospel preached to them..."). Do you recognize that this understanding is not "invented" nor is it unique to me?
2. YOU SAY it doesn't fit the context. I think that is a ridiculous suggestion undermined by what the text actually says. Who says that YOUR hunch is right?
Hell, even wikipedia recognizes the constant theme of wealth and poverty issues in the Bible and specifically in the Gospels and in the early church history...
Alan Kahan points to the fact that Jesus was a poor man as
emblematic of "a revolution in the way poverty and wealth were viewed."
This is not to say that Christian attitudes borrowed nothing from Christianity’s Greco-Roman and Jewish precursors. Kahan acknowledges that, "Christian theology absorbed those Greco-Roman attitudes towards money that complemented its own."
However, as Kahan puts it,
"Never before had any god been conceived of as poor."
He characterizes Christian charity as being "different in kind from the generosity praised in the classical tradition."
Kahan contrasts the attitudes of early Christians with those of classical thinkers such as Seneca. The New Testament urges Christians to sell material possessions and give the money to the poor. According to Kahan,
the goal of Christian charity is equality, a notion which is absent in the Greco-Roman attitudes toward the poor...
Many of the Church Fathers condemned private property and advocated the communal ownership of property as an ideal for Christians to follow. However, they recognized early on that this was an ideal which was not practical in everyday life and viewed private property as a "necessary evil resulting from the fall of man."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_poverty_and_wealth#The_Gospels
My questions indicate a desire to understand your unusual theological construct.
Perhaps your problem is that you’re getting your theology from Wikipedia, not scripture.
“WAS A GOSPEL THAT SPECIFICALLY AND LITERALLY INCLUDED THE POOR AND MARGINALIZED.”
Had you just said this to begin with it would have saved so much time. Instead you have to babble on about all this other crap.
I’ve never claimed to be “right” or the final arbiter, you on the other hand have. If you’re going to make these sorts of claims then don’t be surprised when people don’t blindly accept them without question.
Again, I’m not suggesting that I’m “right”, I’m suggesting that if you’re going to make claims you should be prepared to prove the claims and answer questions. I am suggesting that the your position is contrary to much of Church history and isn’t explicitly supported by the text or context.
The fact that you are taking this so personally seems to indicate that this was more than the rough draft you pretend it to be. You’re also drawing conclusions about the entirety of Jesus ministry based on a small sample of the entirety of Jesus words.
It’s not surprising that you’re drawing conclusions before you’ve finished the entire project. The fact that you’ve drawn these hard conclusions based on incomplete evidence leads to the conclusion that you started with the conclusion and had to make the evidence fit.
I’m sure you’d agree that reaching hard conclusions before you’ve completed your research is not good methodology.
Craig, I'm drawing conclusions based upon 50 years of reading the Bible and listening to what others have had to say about it, about the context of the times, about the language and what people have thought throughout church history. That includes 25=35 years of listening to very traditional conservative thinkers nearly exclusively. It's their sometimes bad reasoning and anti-biblical views that have pushed me away from that line of thinking into considering other views.
How many years have you been considering this question?
Presumptuous, much?
Craig... " I am suggesting that the your position is contrary to much of Church history and isn’t explicitly supported by the text or context."
And I am suggesting,
1. that you have not demonstrated this and
2. that you're mistaken and
3. I'm just pointing out much of what has been accepted and talked about by others throughout the centuries... and that your ignorance of church history is not support for your argument being "right..."
Look, it is easily noted by a simple reading and has been validated by many traditional scholars that Jesus talks a great deal about monetary topics, about wealth and poverty.
"Christian financial expert Howard Dayton has said that the Bible references money and possessions 2,350 times. That’s a lot. It’s more than Jesus talked about love, and more than He talked about heaven and hell combined."
https://www.stewardship.com/articles/3-things-the-bible-says-about-money
"Jesus offers more wisdom and has more to say about money than any other subject besides the "Kingdom of God."
I remember when I first heard a pastor proclaim from the pulpit that Jesus said more about money than he did about love. To be honest, I was a little angry. There was no way that as true...
https://patch.com/georgia/smyrna/jesus-talked-the-most-aboutmoney
I could go on and on. Surely you're not unaware that it is commonly recognized that Jesus spoke a great deal about wealth and poverty?
So, I'm not mistaken on that point, it's easily seen by anyone with an ability to read and has been commonly noted amongst traditional conservative believers.
All I'm doing is trying to look through Jesus' words and get a more precise and well-considered idea of how much he talked about economics and the marginalized and maybe even more than we've traditionally thought.
You have not "proven" me wrong on anything. You've made suggestions and charges that are your opinion and not much more.
Craig... "I’m suggesting that if you’re going to make claims you should be prepared to prove the claims and answer questions."
And that is precisely what I'm doing. I've made a claim (more of a suggestion - these passages touch on economic issues, it seems to me) and I've said why in a very brief manner. You've confronted me suggesting I'm mistaken about the woman at the Pharisees house and I've supported my reasoning. You've not disproven my reasoning and there we sit.
Dan,
You’ve made this I’ve bern reading the Bible for 50 years claim for ages. Which appears to mean that you were seriously reading and studying the Bible before you were 10. If you expect any to take you seriously you’ve got to stop with this kind of thing.
The problem is that you haven’t supported your reasoning with anything more than “That’s how it seems to me.” (Or words to that effect). You claim this vast experience of reading and study of numerous authors, but can’t cite any of them to support your claim. Similarly, you can’t cite scripture that explicitly supports your claim.
I’ve posed questions to dig deeper into your opinion, no answers. Now, because you can’t prove your claims, you expect me to disprove them.
You’ve been quite clear that anyone who makes a claim has the burden of proof. Except yourself.
https://rethinknow.org/2018/10/25/what-jesus-taught-about-most-hint-its-not-money/
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=what+subject+did+jesus+speak+about+the+most
http://len-seekingthelord.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-top-ten-things-jesus-taught.html
"How many years have you been considering this question?" I rarely keep score. But certainly more than 25.
"Presumptuous, much?" Rarely.
"those who were excluded from the gospel of the realm of the pharisees."
This is one of the areas where the Pharisees deviated from the OT law. Just because the Pharisees got this topic wrong, doesn't validate your claim.
"You have not successfully pointed out that I have gotten ANY details "wrong." That my conclusions don't match your presumptions is not a sign that I'm wrong on the details."
Yet, you haven't proven that your claims are correct in the details either. You can't seriously be suggesting that you can be wrong about the details, yet be right about the whole.
"Then you ignore what I was doing. I was taking ALL the words of Jesus (well, from Luke 1-19) and doing a huge overview of the whole of that text, looking for themes. I was not trying to comment a complete study on the forgiven woman at the house of the Pharisee. I was just noting that, in that context, Jesus' teachings/words had direct economic/outsider implications, and thus, fit in with words of Jesus that touch on wealth and poverty."
Oh, wait. This is where you admit that you weren't interested in the accuracy of the details.
Further, in your explanation of your color code you say "Jesus' words that are directly about wealth and/or poverty in Bright Green."
The words "Your sins are forgiven.” and “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”, are both in bright green.
You've offered zero evidence that Jesus was speaking "directly about wealth and poverty" with these statements.
My problem is that the more I read your post, the more ridiculous things I find. But since you haven't proven the correctness of the claims I've already pointed out as problematic, I see no advantage to adding more.
Re: stop claiming I've been reading Bible for 50 years...
There are many problems with conservative Southern Baptists. However, one of the positives that I gleaned from my first half of my life in the southern baptist world is that they took the Bible very seriously.
Yes, I was reading the Bible seriously from the first years of my life. Of course, for many of those years, it was an introduction sort of thing. Bible drills. Bible trivia. Bible games. Quick recall. Sunday school every Sunday. Reading in preparation for Sunday School. Sunday night services. Wednesday evening prayer meetings . Bible movies. Vacation Bible School. Revivals. Here are the stories about Jesus. Here are the stories from the Old Testament. Here is the story of the creation. Here are the books of the Bible... Etc etc.
Many of us Southern Baptist children were very well grounded in the Bible, in church history and General familiarity with the Bible by the time we were 20.
Having ALL of that background, even if it was at a elementary student level, that gave me a solid footing for more serious study of the Bible. By the time I was in my late teens, often times we would have students from the Seminary who would come to the church as youth ministers or other ministers. I/we found that oftentimes, my/our knowledge of the Bible was comparable to theirs, at least on some level. And I'm not saying this just about me, I'm saying this about many serious students of Southern Baptist world.
So don't presume too much to think that child Dan or teen Dan was ignorant of the Bible or not engaged in serious study. I, and many others like me, we're very Earnest little bible readers from a young age. Again, this is not about me, I'm just addressing your concern and how perhaps you are misinformed about how many Southern Baptist children grew up being indoctrinated into Bible studies.
Craig... "Further, in your explanation of your color code you say "Jesus' words that are directly about wealth and/or poverty in Bright Green."
The words "Your sins are forgiven.” and “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”, are both in bright green...."
Those specific words themselves were part of a story that had direct economic implications, I believe. That's my point. Not that each time the word THE shows up that the word THE is economic. I'm talking about the stories being told.
Of course.
So, to be specific about a direct instance, I've explained to you why the woman at the Pharisees house has economic implications. She was from one class, the man from another class. Jesus dealt with the differences between the two..
Yes, he was talking about forgiveness and Repentance, as well, but he was talking about it specifically in the context of this well-to-do man and this marginalized woman.
Now you may not find that to have economic implications. You're free to disagree. I think it is quite clear. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just saying, that for many of us, clearly this has economic implications. Disagree if you wish. But your disagreement does not mean I am wrong. It just means you disagree.
As to how long I've been studying the Bible and economics specifically, I had a reaffirmation of my faith at the age of 16. I know that even then, I could see the repeated message of poverty and wealth and siding with the least of these in the Bible as a very common theme.
I was concerned about the poor and marginalized from a very young age and I was watching for it as I read the Bible as a young conservative. The conservatives in my world also recognized this. They took us to homeless shelters and out working with other folks in poverty, including immigrants, from the time I was a teenager. In my conservative World, concern for those in poverty was just flat-out recognized as, of course, biblical. Of course, Christian.
So, I've been engaged in Bible study 4 over 50 years. The first ten years of which were very Elementary, but they contributed to my knowledge of the Bible. I've been looking at matters of wealth and poverty as found in the Bible from the age of 16, so for 40 years.
Your objections strike me as odd. Regarding the woman at the Pharisees house, I can, of course, see how it's a story of repentance. I can see how it's a story that relates to the difference between Jesus and the Pharisees. And, of course, I can see how it touches on matters of wealth and poverty/marginalization directly, as I've noted. I can see all those things and more in this story.
Now someone could say, for instance, "But I see in this story, where Simon thinks that Jesus is unaware of the woman's 'sinful nature' that Jesus IS able to see her sinful nature... thus, I see this story as a confirmation of Jesus' divinity..." and I would respond, Okay, sure. I don't think it's the point of the story at all, but I could see how someone could read that into the story, even as it being important to the story.
But you don't appear to be able to do that. Clearly, these two people, the pharisee and the harlot, represent two vastly different cultures/worlds. Simon is from the privileged and powerful world of the Pharisees. This woman is from the marginalized world of women and prostitutes (who would be poor save for their prostitution, and who are likely poor, regardless...). But not only do you not think it's a central point of the story, you can't even see it as PART of the story... is that what you're saying? And that I'm "wrong" for seeing it in this story?
Do you see the presumption in such a position, if so?
If you’re going to claim you were engaged in serious high level Bible Study when you were 4-9 years old, that’s fine, just don’t expect anyone to take that seriously.
You and Feo are just a little too proud of yourselves aren’t you?
“Those specific words themselves were part of a story that had direct implications...”
That excuse would make sense (in that it would be a coherent reason), had you not chosen to specifically highlight ONLY those two phrases.
Your you’ve “explained” what you think the hidden meanings are. Yet you haven’t actually done anything but express your hunches. You haven’t proven that the woman in question was “poor” ( or why a poor woman owned and would waste expensive perfume), your assuming facts not in evidence. Further, tour assuming that the host was “rich”, again facts not in evidence.
Then you marginalize the two direct statements Jesus said to her by saying, “I can see how that’s a possible interpretation.” Or words to that effect,
Please demonstrate how “Your sins are forgiven.”, can be interpreted as “economic”?
Look, more pride.
It’s not a matter of me being able to see. It’s a matter of you being able to offer proof for your claims.
After your snarky comment about divinity, I now understand why you were so quick to avoid my earlier questions. We don’t want a “magic” Jesus do we? That’s almost as bad as a Jesus with rules.
Look at my words. Did I ANYWHERE say I was engaged in "serious high level Bible study when I was 4-9..."? No.
What I said was reality... I read the bible - a lot - starting at the age I could read. Before that, I had the bible read to me. Regularly. A lot.
And was it serious? It was as serious as an ernest little eight year old could get. I memorized verses. I participated in bible drills and bible games and bible camps. You know, what a serious Southern Baptist eight year old might engage in. Was I studying Greek? Nope. Never made that claim.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the more earnest corners of Southern Baptist world, but we read and studied the Bible a lot, starting at a young age. That's all I'm saying. And do you know what happens when you read the Bible a lot (even if it's conservatives teaching you)? You start to notice, "Man, Jesus talked about poverty a lot!" Or at least that's what happened to this young boy, and many of my tribe, as well. But I've already stated this. Disagree with reality all you want, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
You and Feo are just a little too proud of yourselves aren’t you?
As I made clear, this was typical of many (not all) southern baptist children in my circles. So, it's really a praise for conservative Southern Baptist parents and teachers, not me. I'm just noting the reality as it existed.
Do you think that acknowledging reality is prideful?
. Yet you haven’t actually done anything but express your hunches. You haven’t proven that the woman in question was “poor” ( or why a poor woman owned and would waste expensive perfume), your assuming facts not in evidence.
I have explained how I reached this conclusion, based upon the text and the context. That you don't acknowledge or understand the conclusion is not evidence that I haven't provided solid, rational reasons.
Do you recognize that?
That excuse would make sense (in that it would be a coherent reason), had you not chosen to specifically highlight ONLY those two phrases.
I've highlighted ALL of Jesus' words in that story, with the exception of "Simon, I have something to tell you..." and I probably should have made that green, as well. Perhaps you missed it.
Now, one could argue that, given the social status of these two people, the highlight should be in dark green rather than light green... (i.e., it's INDIRECTLY related to economic issues, not directly) and that's a reasonable criticism. But to say that I'm wrong to note the reality of the socio-economic status of these two people in this story is just a bit too presumptuous.
And that you don't recognize that Simon was likely much less marginalized and more well-off than this woman was does not mean it's not the reality. It's just a sign of your privilege blinding you to what's in front of your face.
Yes, I think multiple comments emphasizing how much you studied the Bible is a small child is just as prideful as Feo bragging about himself,
You clearly aren’t understanding the difference between “explained” and proven. Especially when you explanation can’t explain how “your sins are forgiven” and “your faith has saved you” are definitively and inextricably linked to economics. Are you suggesting that she had “faith” in the 1st national bank of Judea and that she “saved”her money? You keep repeating this mantra as is proof will magically arise or the smoke screen will be a distraction.
Once again. Where does the text explicitly point to the alleged economic differences between the two? You are imposing this economic overlay that isn’t in the text. If it was you’d be prooftexting up a storm. Look, I get that acknowledgement of mistakes isn’t your strong suit, and it’s something you rarely do (although you did acknowledge the egregious whopper about the KJV, to your credit). Maybe you’re one of those people who is so attached to their creative output that they see questions about the rough draft as personal attacks. I just don’t know. I feel like your so stubborn that you’d be all over explicit proof if you had it, but you aren’t, so all your left with is obfuscation.
I’ve got to applaud you. For someone who’s been incredibly critical of people who take scripture literally, you usually don’t, but when you do you don’t mess around.
You don’t settle for just normal little, you go full bore woodenly literal. You throw out the very possibility of figurative language when necessary and go whole hog to dogmatically literal in a split second.
Craig... "Once again. Where does the text explicitly point to the alleged economic differences between the two?"
Once again, the text points out that the man was a respected Pharisee and the woman was a harlot, a sinner. In the context of THAT world, we can draw reasonable conclusions.
Do you suspect that she was a wealthy woman? Do you have reason to doubt that she was likely poor or from a poor background and forced into prostitution? Where is your evidence for that? I'm telling you that it is reasonable to conclude that this man was comparatively well off given his status. I'm telling you that this woman was almost certainly marginalized and almost certainly not from a wealthy background in that context. Do you doubt it seriously? Answer that question.
Thank you. That was difficult but you finally admit that you are basing your interpretation on assumptions.
Nowhere in the text does it state specifically that the Pharisee was “respected”, nor does it specifically indicate that he was wealthy. You are assuming that all Pharisees were “respected” and “wealthy”, with no actual evidence. Just assumptions.
As to the woman. She was clearly wealthy enough to afford an alabaster jar of expensive perfume, and willing to pour this valuable liquid on Jesus feet. This woman was clearly able to gain access to this dinner, why would they invite or allow her? Your problem is that you are assuming that merely a prostitute, and that prostitutes are always.
What is indisputable is that she had a very valuable jar of perfume. If she was poor, how could she afford it? Or why wouldn’t she have sold it?
The problem you have is that you are treating your assumptions as if they are facts. Since I’m not making claims of fact, as are you, i have no need to prove anything. I’m asking you to provide proof of your claims. What I suspect isn’t the issue, it’s what you can prove. I’m not claiming that she was wealthy, I’m merely pointing out that the text doesn’t demand that she be poor. Just like the text doesn’t demand that he be rich.
If you are “telling me”, then it shouldn’t be a problem to prove what you’re “telling me”. Or should I just blindly accept it because you’re “telling me”.
That sounds like you’re making a claim of fact, if so, prove your claim.
FYI, the only reason why he has to be rich and she poor is to make this fit in your box.
You still haven’t explained how “your sins are forgiven” and “your faith has saved you” can be twisted into economic statements.
Yet, you’ve still dodged the questions about Jesus authority to forgive sins. Or are you suggesting that He didn’t actually forgive her sins? Just more questions you won’t answer.
And as to the harlots wealth, before you repeat something inane, let me point out that already addressed that as a prostitutes may have had some disposable income oh, perhaps. We don't really know we know she had that expensive perfume but we don't know how she got it. But we do know that a prostitutes life was not an easy life in that world. She was marginalized and outcast. We know that. That is the reality of a prostitute in that culture. Do you recognize that reality?
We further know that in most cultures and in most places and in most times, the prostitutes life is not an easy life. Prostitutes tend to come from poverty and return to poverty. At best they might have a few years more Financial Security, that comes, of course, and a huge cost do you recognize those realities?
Given those realities, do you have some reason to suspect that this was the one-in-a-million prostitute who was affluent?
1. I've been quite clear that I'm talking about my assumptions, based on the context. I assume that the people in this story spoke Aramaic because that was common in that culture. I assume, given the words of Jesus in the context of the time and in the context of the stories that most of Jesus followers were poor. We assume a lot of things about the story and most of these assumptions are quite reasonable.
The question is, then, why would you assume that she's wealthy and well off?
2. Of course, I'm not treating my assumptions as facts. I'm treating my assumptions as reasonable.
It is reasonable to assume that they spoke Aramaic. Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus followers, by and large, were poor. It is reasonable to assume that in the context of that world, prostitutes were marginalized and outcast. These are all reasonable assumptions.
I'm literally not saying it is a fact. Maybe this was the King's Daughter who had lots of money and resources and she just chose a life of prostitution. MAYBE she is a wealthy time traveler from the year 2500, where the wealthy can afford to travel back in time and assume the role of a prostitute. But there's nothing to indicate that. That would be a bad assumption.
Do you have any reason to assume that she was well-off and respected, as opposed to struggling and marginalized?
3. The damn bottle of perfume? We don't know where she got the bottle from, first of all. And I'm not saying that there are not times when a prostitute has access to some income. That does not change the reality for most prostitutes.
So again, the question is why would you assume that this is a well-off prostitute and not one struggling and marginalized? Your precious bottle of perfume does not mean a damned thing other than that she had an expensive bottle of perfume.
“She was marginalized and outcast. We know that. That is the reality of a prostitute in that culture”
“We know that”
Define “know”. You have absolutely no idea of the “reality” of this particular prostitute. If you do you should be able to provide proof.
You are trying to extrapolate back from some general truisms, to use that a the basis of a fact claim about one particular person. It’s an assumption.
I’m curious in one comment you aggressively assert that you are talking about “reality”, then you adamantly assert that you are “talking about your assumptions”. Unless you’re claiming your assumptions are reality, why don’t you pick one and stick to it.
You’re right, we don’t know where it came from. Since it doesn’t help your case you’ll just pretend it’s not important. Speaking of assuming, when I see someone with an expensive luxury item, I usually assume they’re poor.
Once again, I’m not assuming anything, I’m trying to get you to prove your assumptions.
The amount of effort you’re engaging in to avoid talking about the whole “forgiveness of sins” thing is interesting.
Taking a little time to do some research, I found two things germane to this discussion:
1. Like today, one could find a cheap whore under the thumb of a pimp-like character, or, if one had the scratch, a more high-class call girl that would be like a live-in lover for a period of time. Said another way, some prostitutes in ancient times did quite well for themselves financially through their "profession".
2. I've found a number of sites that describe the religious leaders of the time, and among them, the Pharisees weren't necessarily wealthy. I've seen them described as "middle-class", "blue-collar" and men of the people...particularly when compared to others, such as the Sadducees.
With the above in mind, it is as just as likely as any other possibility that between the two, both the Pharisee and prostitute were of equal income levels, and even that the whore was richer than the Pharisee. Indeed, the only indication of either person's wealth level suggests the whore had some coin. One needn't be wealthy to invite someone, even multiple people, to dinner. So Dan's insistence that this story counts as evidence of Dan's premise is absurd.
Let me clarify one thing regarding my last:
I was referring specifically to the economic comparison of the two characters of the story. The whore of course is a sinner and as such can be added under the "marginalized" category, though as we know from another story of a sinful woman, few were without sin. So there's that.
Art,
With the exception of the actual priests, both the Pharisees and Sadducees would have earned their income from plying a trade or engaging in a profession, Further, the woman could ( as you point out) have been a really successful hooker, she could have been a courtesan or a concubine (or the equivalent), or she could have simply been promiscuous. We don’t know anything beyond her being able to afford expensive perfume. So, and conclusions about the relative wealth of the two are arbitrary.
The problem is how you fold, spindle, and mutilate “your sins are forgiven” and “ your faith has saved you” into any semblance of anything economic. He didn’t say “your wealth has condemned you”. Jesus said nothing in the entire interaction that directly addresses wealth (He uses figurative language about debtors, but we never take figurative language literally). It’s just not there,
It’s the whole attempt to dodge the forgiveness piece. To stay away from the implication that Jesus claimed over and over to be able to forgive sins. It’s problematic for the economic gospel. That and Jesus refusal to actually permanently solve economic injustice.
What if?
What if the economic gospel is wrong. What if Jesus really did come to earth as a human with the express purpose of paying for sin and to reconcile humanity to Himself.
What happens if someone who’s been taught that the economic gospel is “reality”, who’s devoted their life to economic justice, gets in front of God and finds out that they were wrong? But more than that, what does that say input those who promulgated this economic gospel?
Just a thought experiment.
I'm not sure what you would mean by the economic gospel. I'm talking about a gospel of grace. And in the gospel of grace, being honestly mistaken about a topic does not mean you are not saved. Because, of course, Grace. That's the point.
I’m using economic gospel as a shorthand way to address what you’ve been rambling about.
You seem pretty convinced that your “gospel of grace”, somehow equates to reality. That your “gospel of grace” ( undefined as it is) is right to the exclusion of any other option. As if you’re somehow privy to who is “saved”.
Clearly the tiniest possibility that you might be wrong and that you might lead others astray doesn’t seem to concern you. Hubris.
Irony.
I'm the one who's always quite clear about things being my opinion. You all, on the other hand, want to believe that you all "know" that God is opposed to gay guys marrying and "know" that penal substitutionary atonement is the right way to understand salvation, as opposed to Jesus gospel of grace.
That Jesus he talks about going out to preach the gospel and yet never talks about atonement when he's going out to preach the gospel doesn't bother you all. You know better than Jesus. But I'm the one with hubris.
It’s especially ironic when you continue to assert that your opinion is “reality” and that you’re going to “tell me” how things are. That’s pretty dogmatic for just an opinion.
Still nothing on the multiple questions regarding the “forgiveness of sins” issue.
Still incredibly predictable.
“We further know...”
If you claim to “know” something doesn’t that mean you’ve moved away from opinion?
Maybe,!you mean “know” differently.
As you can see if you read my words, when I say, "we know..." I'm referring to facts, generally. We know that in the ancient world of Jesus, they spoke Aramaic. We know that the vast majority of the people back then were poor and struggling. We know that Jesus never spoke of atonement theories when he spoke about going out to preach the good news. We know that Jesus never condemned homosexuality or gay guys getting married.
These are all just things that we know from the text or from knowledge of the context.
You all, on the other hand, tend to say things like we know that Jesus endorsed a penal substitutionary atonement theory of Salvation. Or we know the God is opposed to gay guys getting married. In other words, you all are talking about "knowing" things that are actually opinions and that are not provable and, many of us would say, quite preposterous.
And that's the difference between me and they. But by all means, clarify. Say oh, no I do not know the God is opposed to gay guys marrying. I do not know that salvation is rightly considered to be attained in a penal substitutionary manner. These are my opinions, not known, established facts.
Thank you for making my point. You interchange things you “know”, with your opinions without differentiation between the two. Then you presume to “tell me”, that your opinions are “reality”.
Speaking of reality, your version of what “you guys” say doesn’t actually agree with reality. (There might be one person who might say that about one topic), but as a blanket statement of fact, it’s just wrong. But anything you can introduce that moves away from the topic and the questions you’ve been asked is probably a win in your mind. If you’d like, in the interest of keeping this thread focused, I’ll give you the opportunity to go off track in a different thread. Not only do you not get deleted, but I accommodate your diversions. That’s kind of like extending you grace.
Nice try, but that while forgiveness of sins thing is a topic you really want to stay away from.
It IS a true fact that it's difficult to say what you believe about a lot of things. You will say something that APPEARS to think that you "know" "as a fact" some opinion about God, but then, I'll ask you questions to try to get you to clarify and you obfuscate, offer vague inanities and dodge the question.
Marshal HAS said that he "knows" " as a fact" some opinions about God, as do many other conservative types.
Do you think you "know" "as a fact" that God is opposed to gay guys marrying? By all means, answer and clear the air.
What you've TENDED to say in the past is that we can't "know" by "in a way that satisfies you, Dan..." but then hinting that, nonetheless, you "know..."
As to the other, we DO know that the people in Jesus' world spoke Aramaic. We can't say with a certainty that any one person was speaking Greek or Aramaic or modern American English (time travelers, you know), but we can say with some certainty that most of the people in Jesus' circles were speaking Aramaic.
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/what-language-did-jesus-speak
So, when I say "we know it..." that is speaking in generalities true.
Do you disagree?
Likewise, we know that, in general terms, most people in Jesus' time were materially poor and marginalized. Jesus' followers tended to be poor and marginalized, we know this from the text.
https://billmuehlenberg.com/2013/08/14/were-jesus-and-the-disciples-wealthy-part-one/
Do you disagree?
"I'm the one who's always quite clear about things being my opinion."
You mean this to sound as a concession...a bit of honest admission of what you do in discourse. But the reality is that you dismiss the fact that without evidence...solid evidence of consequence..."opinion" in your case isn't even "opinion" in reality. It's just you asserting something that has personal appeal. If you insist on saying that "God opposes 'gay' marriage" is just an opinion, those of us to acknowledge this actually have solid evidence of consequence, beginning with God's prohibition of the sexual behavior that makes a marriage "gay". In the meantime, you try to assert the opposite by appeals to suggestions in Scripture that "marriage" is good, and thus, two of the same sex "marrying" is good and worthy of God's blessing. Yet, there is no logical, intelligent reason to pretend "marriage" is used in any way in Scripture to denote any other union but that of man and woman. Thus, no solid evidence of any kind for your opinion, but only your desire that it be so.
So as with most words and concepts, you have a very self-serving understanding of what an opinion is. At the same time, as Craig suggests, you assert opinion as something more akin to reality without doing the hard lifting of connecting one with the other.
"You all..."know" that penal substitutionary atonement is the right way to understand salvation, as opposed to Jesus gospel of grace." ...and... "That Jesus he talks about going out to preach the gospel and yet never talks about atonement when he's going out to preach the gospel doesn't bother you all."
You act as if I didn't just recently at your blog provide one of the verses that demonstrates Jesus preaching exactly that. You prefer this "gospel of grace", when there is no reference to the gospel as such by Christ. The grace of God includes Christ's sacrificial death which is the means by which we are able to inherit the Kingdom of God, which is the Good News. This makes PSA the actual Good News Christ brought to the poor in spirit. It is the actual manifestation of God's grace that He would take the form of man and suffer the fate man deserves. Indeed, it is the overarching theme of the entire Bible.
It sounds like you just admitted they may have just made up your whole “you guys” out of whole cloth.
I guess I’m going to have to add a thread to keep you on track in this one. Of course, if the past is any indication, you’ll keep the diversion going and ignore the stuff you’ve been ignoring.
Art,
I don’t want to discourage this digression from some significant unanswered questions, so I’ll probably move your comment to the new thread.
Don't bother to post anything new for my sake, I've had enough of this mindless prattle for now. I will go back to this line of questions that you keep saying I'm "refusing to answer..." to point out the banal inanity of your thinking, from where I sit.
Did Jesus actually forgive her sins?
Did Jesus have the authority to do so?
Where did He get the authority?
If Jesus really came to primarily alleviate the material suffering of the poor, and to establish a new political system, why didn’t He?
How did forgiveness of sins help the woman’s poverty?
I read this mind-vomit and am left thinking, WTF? What do you THINK I think about Jesus forgiving that woman?
Yes, of course I think Jesus forgave her, why wouldn't I?
Yes, of course, I think that Jesus had "the authority" to forgive her. What does that even mean?
I think YOU have the authority to forgive people. I think that I have the authority to forgive people, to pass on the grace of God to one in need of forgiveness. Where did he "get that authority...?" WTF does that mean. WHO SAYS we need "an authority" to forgive others? Do you think you need some permission to forgive people?
That IS the grace of God. We can be forgiven. We can forgive. it is that of God within us. What do you think forgiveness is? These all seem like mindless questions that don't seem grounded in a decent understanding of forgiveness, of course Jesus can forgive, of course we can forgive. Do I need to even say that? Is there any question about any of that?
As to these two...
If Jesus really came to primarily alleviate the material suffering of the poor, and to establish a new political system, why didn’t He?
How did forgiveness of sins help the woman’s poverty?
1. I didn't say he came "primarily to alleviate the material suffering of the poor..." Do you recognize that reality?
2. Likewise, I never said Jesus came to create a new political system. He came teaching a Way - not even a new way, just the right Way that has always been the right Way. A Way of grace and justice and love. Do you truly disagree?
3. He provided a model - a model of grace and justice for all (meaning specifically the poor... the ones who typically are oppressed) - that DOES help alleviate the suffering of the marginalized... IF WE embrace it. The miracle of God, the grace of God is something that is given to us to share, to embrace, to embody. God has never actively "fixed" all the pain in the world in some magic act. God has always authorized us to be God's justice and grace. As we STOP penalizing and attacking immigrants and refugees and start, you know, actually being decent neighbors as an act of grace and solidarity with the poor and oppressed, then BOOM, the suffering of the marginalized is alleviated!
You DO understand that, don't you? Don't ever ask another question of me until you answer that question because, good Lord, this is just basic reality.
4. How does publicly siding with and forgiving a marginalized woman - a woman constantly at threat of being stoned to death because she's struggling to survive in a system not designed to work for one like her (not unlike today's immigrants and refugees are constantly at threat of being imprisoned and worse for simply struggling to survive) - and demonstrating that she SHOULD be a welcomed and beloved member of the community NOT help a woman's poverty?
When refugees are no longer belittled, attacked, demonized and imprisoned... when they are welcomed to the community in grace and love, THEN they have the opportunity to escape that which threatens them... they have SUPPORT to escape that which threatens them.
I'm honestly curious: Do you not understand this?
Dan,
Even though your “answers” weren’t really answers, I think you inadvertently gave me the information I was trying to get at. Thanks.
I’ll note your inability to focus is becoming worse. You’ve still not demonstrated that your categorization of these incidents is correct. You’ve contradicted yourself, you’ve distorted what others have said, and you’ve gone to the old reliable faux outrage gambit as usual.
Your predictability is getting old.
Craig...
Even though your “answers” weren’t really answers...
Dan (in response to Craig's questions)...
Did Jesus actually forgive her sins?
Did Jesus have the authority to do so?
Where did He get the authority?
I read this mind-vomit and am left thinking, WTF? What do you THINK I think about Jesus forgiving that woman?
Yes, of course I think Jesus forgave her, why wouldn't I?
Yes, of course, I think that Jesus had "the authority" to forgive her. What does that even mean?
I think YOU have the authority to forgive people. I think that I have the authority to forgive people, to pass on the grace of God to one in need of forgiveness. Where did he "get that authority...?" WTF does that mean. WHO SAYS we need "an authority" to forgive others? Do you think you need some permission to forgive people?
That IS the grace of God. We can be forgiven. We can forgive. it is that of God within us.
How is "YES he forgave her sins" NOT an answer? How is "Yes, Jesus had the authority" NOT an answer? How is "We ALL have the 'authority' to forgive..." NOT an answer?
You're being obtuse and divisive and obnoxiously so. ANYONE can see that this is a literal and clear and direct answer to these questions. What I wonder about (and wouldn't even ask, since you don't appear to be engaged in the same conversation I'm in) is, DO you honestly not even understand that these ARE direct and clear answers to these questions? Do you somehow honestly think that I DIDN'T answer them clearly and directly?
And if so, how does one get so... I don't know, confused?
I wonder what people like you think Jesus' Good News is, and in what sense is it good news? For instance, even if you wouldn't put it this way, is this not a technically correct summation of your hunches about "good news..."?
Ancient marginalized person (AMP): Wow! I just heard Jesus speaking about the "Good News FOR THE POOR and OPPRESSED," Specifically for "the poor and oppressed..." he said! I am a poor and marginalized dirt farmer whose poor daughter ended up working as a harlot after her husband abandoned her. Jesus' way sounds like it's something different than the legalism of the Pharisees, which is just more oppression especially for marginalized folk like me and my family... this sounds like an open invitation to ALL to be part of God's realm AND that it makes a real difference in our life, here and now! Glory be!
Modern Conservative Evangelicals (MCE): Now, hold on a second there, son. You're confusing Jesus' good news with socialism or something. You've got it all wrong.
AMP: What? Well, what IS the good news for the poor and marginalized that Jesus talked of?
MCE: Well, first of all, it's NOT a good news specifically for the poor, that's your first mistake.
AMP: But, but Jesus said...
MCE: Look, clearly you've been reading Marx, not Jesus. The good news is this: That ALL of us humans are horrible, awful, monstrous people. EVEN OUR BABIES are sinful. In fact, all of us, even our babies, are SO awful and sinful, that we DESERVE to die.
AMP: Even our babies...?
MCE: ...and NOT just to die, but to die and yet your spirit will be kept alive and tortured in fire for all of eternity.
AMP: That's the good news??
MCE: No, of course not. The good news is that God is offering us an alternative. We can be saved eventually and go to heaven and live in bliss forever.
AMP: Starting now? Because I'm hungry and oppressed here, now...
MCE: No, Jesus didn't really care all that much specifically about the poor and marginalized. He just didn't have a lot to say about the condition of the poor and marginalized...
AMP: It sounded to me like he did... that's why all of us poor folk were so energized by his teachings...
MCE: Nope. Jesus loves ALL of us sinners and invited SOME of us to that bliss of heaven. Of course, the rest of us, including most poor people AND most rich people, will be tortured for eternity for being awful, terrible people that God didn't choose.
AMP: God's only choosing SOME of us? But what if we WANT to be saved but weren't chosen?
MCE: IF you weren't chosen, that means you didn't really want to be saved in the first place. And so, for such a person, it's eternal torture for being such a horrible human being.
AMP: Eternal torture??! What did I do that was SO awful that it deserves eternal torture?
MCE: Be born a fallen, disgusting, sin-riddled human being.
AMP: But... I didn't ask to be born or to be born that way. I just was born, without my consent.
MCE: Nonetheless, you have chosen to reject God's offer (if you're not in the Elect chosen by God group) and thus, will be tortured for an eternity.
AMP: And THAT is the "good news for the poor and oppressed" that Jesus talked about? No changes now, continued suffering and oppression now, but one day, there's a one in a hundred chance I might be one of the elect that gets saved?
MCE: One in a hundred actually sounds pretty high, to me. "WIDE is the way that leads to destruction," you know?
AMP: (muttering...), but... but how is that good news for the poor and oppressed?
MCE: (singing) Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like ME (but not him, poor chump!)
+++++++
Is that a technically close summary of your hunches about salvation? Even if you wouldn't put it that way? If it's not correct, what isn't correct? How is YOUR version of "good news for the poor" in any way actually good news for the poor? Or was Jesus wrong to put it that way?
I’ll note your inability to focus is becoming worse.
Irony. Focus ON WHAT? You speak in vague inanities and expect people to focus on... something... maybe... it's just not anything you're going to specify... just make some casual, obtuse apparent reference to... Case in point...
You’ve still not demonstrated that your categorization of these incidents is correct.
WHAT categorization of WHAT "incidents..."??
You’ve contradicted yourself,
About WHAt?
you’ve distorted what others have said
WHEN? HOW SO?
and you’ve gone to the old reliable faux outrage gambit as usual.
Expressing relatively mild exasperation over nonsensical vagaries is not faux outrage, it's genuine puzzlement over the unclear meanderings of an apparently dysfunctional mind and/or writer.
Regarding your first comment, I’ll rephrase. Yes you answered the questions but your answers simply raise more questions. I understand how frustrating it can be when you answer questions and treated as if you haven’t. I apologize for phrasing that poorly.
As to your second comment, it’s always cute when you just make stuff up and argue against the stuff you made up.
As to your third. This post and thread aren’t about PSA, or any of the other things you’ve introduced to move the conversation away from your earlier refusal to answer questions and your inability to provide evidence for your claims.
I’ll pull more examples but your insistence that you’re going to “tell me”, what “reality” is then to insist that it’s all just your “opinion” is the example of you contradicting yourself that comes to mind.
I’ll pull more when I’m not on my phone.
Categorization of the incidents referenced in my post.
Your “you guys” believe comment was a distortion and an attempt to play to you group identity prejudices.
As to your faux outrage, you do it all the time. You choose something to work yourself up over and use it as an excuse to bail, presumably you think it helps you save face or something.
More contradicting later.
Dan,
I’ll ask this here,
If Jesus primarily came to provide economic justice and mercy to the poor starting in 30 AD, where is the evidence of Him putting one sustaining program into place? Why are those who follow Him poor, marginalized, oppressed, and killed within the life span of His followers? Why hasn’t His gospel of economic justice and mercy come into it’s fullness after 2000 years? Does this mean that His gospel was a big FU to everyone born before He quoted Isiah?
You cherry pick, them misinterpret, to come up with this Utopian economic justice gospel, but can’t actually show it ever being implemented.
If the gospel of economic and social justice is best expressed by the Matt 25 rubric of “feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.”, and this gospel is preached to the poor, then isn’t Matt 25 telling the poor to feed the poor?
Craig...
If Jesus primarily came to provide economic justice and mercy to the poor starting in 30 AD, where is the evidence of Him putting one sustaining program into place?
I didn't say that Jesus came "primarily to provide economic justice and mercy to the poor."
Do you recognize that reality?
I can answer your questions - even when you continue to fail to understand my words and your questions are indications of this - but I will expect you to answer mine (which I'll put in bold to make it easier for you to see).
Jesus came teaching a Way. A Way of Grace... the same Way of Grace that God taught throughout the Bible. That Way is NOT one which emphasizes traditions and rule following, but it IS one that is exemplified in working in solidarity with the poor. Thus, there was no "program." There was a Way and he DID teach it and implement it.
He implemented it/demonstrated it when he stopped the legal injustice of an attempt to kill an oppressed woman for the "sin of adultery." He implemented it/demonstrated it when he taught inclusion of the poor and marginalized - in direct opposition to religious rules that said that the poor and marginalized were unclean and had to be kept separate. Those dirty sick people, those dirty women, those dirty Samaritans. Accepting these outsiders as our neighbors and welcoming them in IS the Way of grace.
The "programs" that may arise to help do this could be varied and situational, depending on the culture and the need, but the Way of Grace remains the same.
In the early church, following Jesus' example, they instituted the office of deacons to deal with the poor and marginalized. They shared all things in common, living simply in an effort to take care of/side with/join with the poor and marginalized. These are ideas and "programs" that arose from Jesus' Way of Grace.
I guess you don't see this in Jesus' teachings?
Why are those who follow Him poor, marginalized, oppressed, and killed within the life span of His followers?
Not sure what you mean. Not all who followed him were killed.
Why hasn’t His gospel of economic justice and mercy come into it’s fullness after 2000 years?
Because people like you don't accept that the Way of Grace should be more evident in our actions for and with the poor and thus, downplay that very core part of Jesus' gospel to the poor and marginalized (his words, not mine). Indeed, many like you demonize efforts to side with the poor and marginalized, mocking it as a "fake gospel" called "the social gospel..." If more Christians acted like the anabaptists and churches like mine, welcoming in refugees and the poor and marginalized, then it would come more into its fullness.
You're sort of throwing me softballs there, big fella.
Does this mean that His gospel was a big FU to everyone born before He quoted Isiah?
Nope. Good people have always embraced the Way of Grace. Its evident throughout the OT, too. Read the prophets some times. And do it without calling them socialist or suggesting that they're preaching a fake "social gospel..."
Another question for you, having answered your questions... WHY did Jesus say he had come to preach the good news SPECIFICALLY to the poor?
What was there in Jesus' message (as you understand it) that WAS good news for the poor? Anything?
This is where you get incoherent. You insist that the message of Jesus is economic and political, yet when asked you insist that it isn’t.
I’m the church in Acts, you need to look closer at what they spent the majority of their time doing and who specifically the deacons were serving.
You keep throwing out this “way of grace” pablum, because it’s one of your catch phrases that is so ill defined that it means everything, anything, and nothing simultaneously, The notion that primarily the poor are the only ones in need of grace makes no sense in the light of the entirety of scripture.
As far as you questions.
This is what happens when you base your theology on one or two verses and ignore the other verses that speak on the topic.
Jesus message was Good News for everyone, I don’t see the discrimination you see. Again, I’m looking at the entire narrative arc of scripture and not just at one or two verses.
Part of your problem is that you’ve decided that your eisegeis of part of one Gospel somehow settles everything.
I’m surprised that someone with your extensive history of decades of Bible study is unaware of the persecution of the early Church. But since you aren’t, I’ll suggest looking at the context and content of 1&2 Peter.
You keep using the term “economic” to describe the passages you highlight, you insist that Jesus came to spread the gospel “specifically” and “primarily” to the poor. You’ve also insisted that Jesus was “political”.
If these are the case, why can’t yoy provide anything more specific than “the poor were included”? How did this gospel specifically make the lives of the poor better? How specifically did Jesus make political inroads into the ruling power in the Middle East? How does Jesus invitation to share His suffering beneficial to the poor?
Again, when you throw out this meaningless pablum without specific examples it doesn’t really help.
It seems that the crux of this conversation is understanding why Jesus came or what His purpose was. If you only look at one verse quoting Jesus, and one parable, then perhaps you will not have a complete view of Jesus motivation. To that end, I've offered a few other options where Jesus speaks for Himself.
Matthew 9:13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Matthew 10:34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:35
For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
Mark 1:38
Jesus replied, “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.”
Mark 2:17
On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Mark 14:48 “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?
Luke 5:32 I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Luke 12:49 [ Not Peace but Division ] “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!
John 5:43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.
John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
John 8:14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me.
John 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”
John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.
John 12:46 I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
Yes. All of the above. And including precisely what Jesus said to begin his ministry. I have come to preach good news to the poor. In what sense do you think Jesus came to preach good news to the poor? What was that good news and why was it specifically good news to the poor? Or do you think that uses was wrong to say that?
If you want to construct your theology of the gospel on one verse go ahead. It’s just that by looking larger and not imputing motives where motives aren’t obvious you’ll end up with more than s one dimensional take.
I think Jesus came to preach the same good news to the poor as He did to the rich. I don’t need a political/economic Jesus,
I like where He specifically denies being political, I guess I can believe you or Jesus on that.
You do realize that none of those mentions the poor, right?
"What was that good news and why was it specifically good news to the poor?"
Still waiting for you to state what YOU think the Good News is and on what verse(s) you base your opinion. Now I'll go to your blog to see if you've provided it there.
Craig... If you want to construct your theology of the gospel on one verse go ahead.
Dan... ALL OF THE ABOVE.
Did you miss the agreed with all of it? Did you miss the question that was asked of you that remains unanswered. That remains unanswered by all of you?
I'm saying quite clearly, that yes, Jesus came to forgive sins. That yes, Jesus came to call all of us. That yes, Jesus came to seek and save the Lost. And that yes, Jesus came to preach good news to the poor. You, on the other hand, appear to want to confirm all of them except the one that you don't like for some reason. Take a stand. Clarify. Did Jesus come to preach to the poor or not? Why did Jesus come to preach good news specifically to the poor? What is it that you think is good news for the poor?
Art, that’s a great point. All I’ve gotten is that it’s “primarily” for the poor, and that it’s away of grace and that there’s a table. What I don’t understand is why it would be attractive.
If it’s a promise of improvement in one’s material conditions (more money, food, house, etc), that seems like it might be attractive.
If it’s “Your sins are forgiven” and “you will be with me in paradise”, I can see how that would be attractive.
If it’s “I’m going to overthrow those in power and put y’all in charge”, I can see how that would be attractive.
But this amorphous, undefined, “Y’all have a seat at the metaphorical table”, doesn’t seem like it’s going to sell in 1st century Israel when your being oppressed by the Romans and by Herod. I’m sure there’s more to it, but teasing out the details isn’t easy.
I'm glad to answer your question (again) (hint: I've already answered it in this very post), but why won't you all answer my questions?
Craig, I'm glad to clarify what you are (clearly) not "getting" in my pretty clear answer, but would you please answer the very reasonable, very topical questions put to you?
Did Jesus come to preach good news SPECIFICALLY to the poor and marginalized?
If not, why did he say it?
If so, WHAT was that "good news" and how was it good news for the poor specifically?
Craig... " that’s a great point. All I’ve gotten is that it’s “primarily” for the poor, and that it’s away of grace and that there’s a table. What I don’t understand is why it would be attractive."
1. You've gotten a good deal more than that. You've just failed to understand my pretty clear words (and the pretty clear words of Jesus, it seems to me).
2. I have not said that the gospel is "primarily for the poor." Not my words. You continue to read and fail to understand. In fact, you've repeated that whole "primarily" claim several times and I've already corrected your mistaken interpretation of my words several times and STILL you repeat the error. You read and repeat back what I've said, only it's not what I've said.
Go ahead, do a search for the word Primarily here. You're the only one who's brought that word up (well, except for when I've told you I didn't say it). Or go ahead and do a search on my page for that word. Again, there are no instances of me saying it.
You read and repeat back what I've said, only it's not what I've said.
If that's how you do with my very few words in the same day and time and language, what makes you think you can interpret the Bible with any confidence? You appear to have an understanding language problem.
Some good reading material from another source other than me, if you don't mind wading through some more scholarly reading, on understanding the Good News SPECIFICALLY for the poor (and with specific warnings to we who are rich!)...
"You may feel uncomfortable? Yes, so do I. Luke sounds a
little bit like someone that might vote for Bernie Sanders. The pressing
question to most of us is: Shouldn’t we take Luke seriously? Shouldn’t
we live the “simple obedience” that Bonhoeffer taught in his “The Cost
of Discipleship”? Simple obedience instead of surrounding us with
complex hermeneutical fences by which we try to relativize Luke’s and
– even worth – Jesus’ message?
...Highly irritating and annoying is the fact
that God is not just taking sides with the poor,16 but that he speaks woes
against the rich. And our reaction might be that of the rich ruler: “But
when he heard this, he became sad; for he was very rich” (Luke 18:23).
So, are rich people excluded from salvation? Yes, salvation is at stake.
But Jesus does not in principle neglect salvation for rich people, but he
tells the rich ruler: “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter
the kingdom of God!"
https://www.lextheo.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/LTS-Quarterly_Vol.47_No.12_Hofheinz_41-56.pdf
There's plenty more. Good stuff, check it out.
Here's someone who sounds like a traditional conservative who deals with "good news for the poor" in a way that you may find more edible and nutritious. Not sure how I feel about him, but he's at least acknowledging Jesus message WAS good news specifically for the poor...
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/026537889000700103
What is the Good News of Grace? Why don't you begin here... It's a little bit of everything...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vin0U-ej1L8
Don't respond, don't vent or rant, just breathe it in and let Grace be...
Craig... "this amorphous, undefined, “Y’all have a seat at the metaphorical table”, doesn’t seem like it’s going to sell..."
While I'm waiting for answers that no doubt won't come, let me just correct this. The welcome is to an actual table. To join Jesus actual community of followers, to sit at their welcome table, and actual table not a metaphorical one, to be part of the early church, share all things in common, tending to the needs of the poor and widows.
It's an open invitation to an actual table.
Additionally it's an open invitation to a Way of Grace, not legalism. And that Grace is evidence in its inclusion of the poor and marginalized.
You know, literal good news to the literal poor.
Y'all are just the worst biblical literalists.
No, the preponderance of His statements don’t support this.
Unlike you, I don’t know.
The short version of the Good News is that God is redeeming all of creation. Which is good news for everyone.
Still no answers, just undefined pablum and catchphrases.
You say you “agree”, but are you saying that all of Jesus’ explanations of why He came are equal?
Reasons why I don’t buy your gospel that excludes based on wealth.
1. You’re rich and powerful by any global measurement, yet you continue to speak of “the rich” as if they’re someone else.
2. It goes against too much evidence that I’ve seen with my own eyes. For example, every one of the people I travel to Haiti with are rich. Yet this bunch of rich people who Jesus didn’t include in His gospel have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars of cash, medical supplies, property, food, clothing, etc, in order to provide medical treatment for literally tens of thousands of “the poor”.
I ran into a friend the other night who left his job in the financial sector and is running a ministry (his second), that is dedicated to ending hopelessness among at risk teens.
Last Sunday we heard from a country director for IJM, who talked about how creating wealth is one key to helping the poor.
Bob Goff is rich by any definition. yet his passion is rescuing the poor.
When I look at the entire arc of scripture, when I look at all of Jesus words, when I look at Jesus actions, at the words and actions of those closest to Him, I definitely see a concern for the poor. What I don’t see is this vague undefined gospel you talk about. I see s much bigger and more all encompassing gospel. I also see too much real life evidence that doesn’t fit your theory.
Dan,
As I started look at additional resources, I realized why your adamant insistence on making one verse the be all and end all of Jesus ministry bothers me.
The problem is, that you’ve stated your conclusion as fact, before you’ve completed your research. You’ve looked at part of one of the Gospels, and concluded that you know what “the gospel” is before you’ve looked at everything Jesus said.
You’ve already excluded the possibility that you might find anything else that might change your conclusion.
One of your arguments denigrating the scriptural references to homosexuality is that there are just a few verses and that the scarcity of verses undermines the content of those verses. Yet you’re hanging your hat on one verse even though there are other verses that offer plausible, reasonable alternatives to your adamant insistence.
Perhaps the answer is that you should set aside your preconceptions, finish your project of evaluating all 1900 of Jesus’ sayings, then reach a conclusion based on all of the evidence.
“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.”
These are your exact words, but you bitch about my using “primarily” to sum this up?
“Who the message is for? (The poor and the marginalized over and over)”
Maybe exclusively is more accurate than primarily.
Craig... "These are your exact words, but you bitch about my using “primarily” to sum this up?"
Yes. In spite of your choosing to conflate what I said to mean I'm saying salvation is primarily about poverty...
1. it's not what I said.
2. It's not what I intended.
3. It's not what those words mean.
It's your misunderstanding, not my misstatement or intention.
And, with all your words in response, still no answer to the reasonable questions I put to you.
Craig... "Yet you’re hanging your hat on one verse even though there are other verses that offer plausible, reasonable alternatives to your adamant insistence.
Perhaps the answer is that you should set aside your preconceptions, finish your project of evaluating all 1900 of Jesus’ sayings,"
Clearly, I'm not hanging my hat on one verse. That you continue and continue to misunderstand and misrepresent - to be confused or to deliberately misrepresent what I'm saying, whichever way it is - in spite of your misunderstanding and mistatements, you still fail to understand my words.
Which raises the reasonable question, once again, why do you think you can understand biblical words accurately when you can't understand mine?
"No, the preponderance of His statements don’t support this.
Unlike you, I don’t know.
The short version of the Good News is that God is redeeming all of creation. Which is good news for everyone."
September 25, 2019 at 5:51 AM Delete
"And, with all your words in response, still no answer to the reasonable questions I put to you."
September 25, 2019 at 7:49 AM
Yet once more reality betrays you.
Once again, if you can't provide enough explanation and detail, that's not my problem.
The fact remains that your words are your words and you're bitching about semantics.
You've offered one verse as proof of your "good news", again that's just the reality.
I've offered the entirety of the Bible, Common Sense, basic decency, all of humanity as proof of that good news. You just failed to see it.
Really, that's an amazing claim. I'm sure that proof will be forthcoming.
But an impressive appeal to numbers, too bad that's a logical fallacy. Also, I'm going to bet that "all of humanity" (especially the billions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc) aren't going to agree with you, but I'm sure they appreciate you speaking for them. When you say you've offered "the whole Bible", does that mean that you're now suggesting that the parts that only applied to the Hebrews and all the rules now apply to everyone?
The proof is in the words I've already offered, Craig. I've given you answers, you haven't seen them. I don't know that me giving you more answers will help you see them. Do you think it will?
You’ve been quite adamant that you’re merely spouting opinions. Yet you’ve claimed that your opinions represent “reality”, now you claim your opinions are “proof”.
Proof of what, that you can only view scripture through the lens of your prejudices?
I do love to see you use a different dismount. The faux outrage dismount was getting old, glad you brought this old standby back out.
Sorry if I was not totally clear. I meant Proof, as in the proofs of my arguments, the case for my arguments that make me and people like me reach out OPINIONS. Not proofs like "I am the sole one with factual data that says I'm factually correct, objectively speaking." Unlike you, I recognize opinions as opinions.
So, when I say things like "We know that people in Jesus time spoke Aramaic, or were poor..." or "we know that prostitutes have always been marginalized and oppressed and generally are coming from poor backgrounds..." I'm talking about what we know with general confidence. I'm not saying "It's a fact that this woman in the story at Simon's house was 100% certainly poor...," but that this is a reasonable conclusion that she was poor and marginalized, given what we know.
But then, I've explained all of this before. You continue to fail to understand my words and I continue to ask questions that go unanswered, including this one: If you can't understand my words and intent, then on what basis would you boast any confidence in understanding biblical words?
So you are using the word “proof” (or bizarrely “Proof”) in some nonstandard way.
If your (low) standard is “proof” that you have some reason why you hold your opinions, then you’ve met that (low) standard.
So what.
Your problem is that you don’t have proof that your opinions match reality. That they are true. Not even that they’re more likely to be true than other opinions.
Essentially your proud of yourself for offering “Proof” that you have opinions. Impressive.
No, it’s really not impressive at all. Not is it convincing. You can equate your options with “reality” all you want, it makes you delusional, not correct.
"If you can't understand my words and intent, then on what basis would you boast any confidence in understanding biblical words?"
I really love this question. The answer is obvious: unlike you, Dan, Scripture isn't convoluted, equivocating and ambiguous, but instead is really quite easy to understand.
I would again assert that your words and intent are far more understood by us than you would like to believe, but that you don't like how they look when stripped of your convoluted, equivocating and ambiguous presentation.
It’s just one of his standard dismounts. It wouldn’t even get a good score from the East German judge. It’s just setting up a “face saving” excuse.
Post a Comment