"14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15 He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f]
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f]
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”"
I can't help but notice that the first thing Jesus does, is to start teaching at the Sabbath services at the synagogues throughout the region. It's almost like Jesus is acknowledging that gathering regularly to worship God is a good thing that He endorses.
Now, a couple of things stuck out to me in this familiar passage, primarily what is the focus of this prophecy. He starts out focusing on God and Himself. The focus of the passage isn't on the poor, the prisoners, the blind, or the oppressed. It's on Jesus, and His role. Now, that whole freeing prisoners, helping the poor, giving sight to the blind is great. It fits with the political messiah that the Jews were looking for and that's all good. But, when He claims that He's here to institute the year of Jubilee, and that He's the fulfillment of the prophecy, the crowd gets restless.
28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way."
Surely, the crowd in the worship service didn't get so upset that they were going to throw Jesus off a cliff because He was talking about engaging in some social justice work. Were they really mad because he was going to help the poor, free the captives, and heal the blind? Is that really what had them trying to throw Him off a cliff? Or could it be that Jesus, "Joseph's boy" claiming to be the fulfillment of prophecy was the problem. Maybe His claim of being the Messiah was what got them going? He didn't fit in their box.
But, beyond that, let's look at what the SJW's also leave out. What about the rest of the prophecy.
" 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of joy
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the Lord
for the display of his splendor.
4 They will rebuild the ancient ruins
and restore the places long devastated;
they will renew the ruined cities
that have been devastated for generations.
5 Strangers will shepherd your flocks;
foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.
6 And you will be called priests of the Lord,
you will be named ministers of our God.
You will feed on the wealth of nations,
and in their riches you will boast.
and restore the places long devastated;
they will renew the ruined cities
that have been devastated for generations.
5 Strangers will shepherd your flocks;
foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.
6 And you will be called priests of the Lord,
you will be named ministers of our God.
You will feed on the wealth of nations,
and in their riches you will boast.
7 Instead of your shame
you will receive a double portion,
and instead of disgrace
you will rejoice in your inheritance.
And so you will inherit a double portion in your land,
and everlasting joy will be yours.
you will receive a double portion,
and instead of disgrace
you will rejoice in your inheritance.
And so you will inherit a double portion in your land,
and everlasting joy will be yours.
8 “For I, the Lord, love justice;
I hate robbery and wrongdoing.
In my faithfulness I will reward my people
and make an everlasting covenant with them.
9 Their descendants will be known among the nations
and their offspring among the peoples.
All who see them will acknowledge
that they are a people the Lord has blessed.”
I hate robbery and wrongdoing.
In my faithfulness I will reward my people
and make an everlasting covenant with them.
9 Their descendants will be known among the nations
and their offspring among the peoples.
All who see them will acknowledge
that they are a people the Lord has blessed.”
10 I delight greatly in the Lord;
my soul rejoices in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the soil makes the sprout come up
and a garden causes seeds to grow,
so the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness
and praise spring up before all nations."
my soul rejoices in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the soil makes the sprout come up
and a garden causes seeds to grow,
so the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness
and praise spring up before all nations."
Well, all of a sudden we get a slightly different view of why Jesus came. I'm guessing that things like "day of vengeance of our God", "feed on the wealth of nations", boasting of "their riches", "double portion" of inheritance, being clothed in the "garments of salvation" and the "robe of righteousness", don't really fit with the SJW box they'd like Jesus to fit into.
Now, I'll be fair and admit that it's possible that the SJW's didn't know that the Luke 4 passage didn't even contain the entirety of the first two verses of the Isaiah prophecy (I know they didn't have the chapter and verse breaks then). I'm willing to grant that this is all new to them. But, now that it's out there, it kind of changes the view of what Jesus was announcing.
Given the fact that most observant Jews in the first century had a much better grasp of their scriptures than most of us, it is hard to make the argument that Jesus was excerpting slightly over 1 verse from an extended and detailed prophecy, because His audience would have largely been able to fill in the rest. Further, if you excerpt that snippet and combine it with "today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing", then it becomes self refuting. Clearly we aren't seeing prisoners released, blind folks healed, or the poor receiving any help right then. In fact, we see very little of those sorts of things during Jesus earthly ministry.
As has been pointed out multiple times in multiple places, this is the problem you get when you arbitrarily sever scripture from it's context.
38 comments:
Some questions that your post raise, for me (no accusations or condemnations or disagreement, at this point, just some questions)...
You cite the rest of Isaiah...
"to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
and provide for those who grieve in Zion
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of joy
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair...."
So, Jesus said he came to preach good news specifically to the poor, the sick, the outcast/oppressed, citing Isaiah. Jesus came to bring the day of Jubilee (an economic restructuring which in theory would restore balance between the very wealthy and those who'd fallen into poverty.
Isaiah also mentioned those who mourn and grieve, that things would be restored for them.
Agreed, and glory hallelujah, what a beautiful and powerful promise! (And what a troubling and even criminal threat, for those tied to their wealth over justice, seems to me and others).
So, why was Isaiah making these promises of restoration about the way of God?
Why was Jesus saying specifically he'd come to preach good news to the poor and restore the oppressed in a great day of Jubilee?
Why WAS God warning about a day of vengeance and who was being warned?
Just wondering your opinions.
re: Clearly we aren't seeing prisoners released, blind folks healed, or the poor receiving any help right then. In fact, we see very little of those sorts of things during Jesus earthly ministry.
Well, we clearly see that Jesus DID heal folks, right then and there. The early church and the disciples DID feed and help the poor, right then and there.
Seems to me that this is the miracle of God's Way of Grace that Jesus taught... AS we each adopt/embrace Jesus' way of grace and concern for the sick, the poor, the foreigners, the oppressed and otherwise marginalized, then we can create a world largely redeemed by that grace. If Jesus and the 12 apostles/early disciples each were helping more than one poor, sick, etc, person, and IF even only 1/10th of the world embraced that way of grace, THEN wouldn't we have a redeemed and much better world?
I don't think global cures for illness or poverty are going to come by a magic sweep of a few people, but rather by all of us/most of us embracing this Way.
As for your first, it seems strange to try to compartmentalize all the different things mentioned. For example to sever the promised vengeance from the promised salvation seems pointless. Given that this is in the context of a prophecy about the coming Messiah, then it stands to reason that you can’t ignore the possibility that he’s talking about a final, intimate redemption rather than a temporary, temporal “improvement”. Again, when you choose to pick out certain facets in order to put limits on the message, it diminishes the entirety on the message. As far as a day of vengeance, are you agreeing that God is a God of vengeance? That vengeance/judgement and a resulting punishment is something to look forward to? I’d say that vengeance/judgement is coming to all who don’t have the “garments of salvation” and the “robe of righteousness”.
Without denying the reality that some relatively small number of people were fed and healed, it certainly wasn’t a common, general occurrence. We certainly don’t see large numbers of prisoners being set free either. We also don’t see any of those things happening in the “hearing” of the group at the worship services. In fact, He tells them in the next paragraph or so, that they specifically won’t see those signs. Which raises the question, WHAT was actually being fulfilled in the “hearing” of the congregation?
It also sure seems like He’s suggesting that “they” were going to enjoy some significant riches at the expense of others.
Craig... "it seems strange to try to compartmentalize all the different things mentioned. For example to sever the promised vengeance from the promised salvation..."
I apologize if I said something that was not clear to you. I never mentioned compartmentalizing anything. I never said anything vengeance from salvation. So, I'm not clear on your point here. Feel free to elaborate.
I'm guessing that because I spoke of humans walking in God's way and bringing God's Realm through healing for the sick and comfort for the oppressed here-and-now and said nothing about vengeance means you think I'm separating them. I'm not.
Perhaps you and I think about God's salvation and God's Vengeance in different ways. Actually, almost certainly.
In this world, here now, I do not see God actively acting to miraculously send a miraculous vengeance upon Bad actors, nor God actively stepping in and, by God's own hand, healing sick people and providing food. Rather, I see God acting through God's body. I find it biblical and reasonable to suggest that we bring forth the realm of God by God's grace in the Here and Now by our actions. By walking in the way the Jesus walked. By following the grace in the teachings of Jesus.
Vengeance, too, happens now, in the hell that people create for themselves here and now by their hyper-consumption and greed and oppression.
So, I have not severed or compartmentalized anything. I'll answer your questions next.
Craig... "As far as a day of vengeance, are you agreeing that God is a God of vengeance? That vengeance/judgement and a resulting punishment is something to look forward to?"
In the Bible, I believe we find God to be defined/ described as a God of love, of grace, of forgiveness, of justice. I don't see God's nature being described as God being a god of vengeance. So, no, I do not agree that God is a god of vengeance.
I do agree that justice is something to look forward to. I take no pleasure in the notion of vengeance nor do I find it something to look forward to.
I would say that vengeance and justice are two different things.
Are you suggesting the justice and a better world are nothing more than things to look forward to in the sky by and by, rather than working for here and now?
Re: " enjoy some significant riches at the expense of others..." I would suggest the better way of understanding it is in terms of a day of Jubilee. Where those who had fallen behind and into poverty and into oppression wood finding set right and those who benefited from the oppression would also find things set right. So the riches they would enjoy were deserved riches, shared riches, at the expense of the oppressors who took it away. I think that's the more reasonable and biblical understanding of what's being talked about there.
Now that I've answered your questions and clarified your misunderstandings, I still I wonder why you think Amos and Jesus speaking specifically of good news to the poor, the sick and the oppressed?
Craig... "Without denying the reality that some relatively small number of people were fed and healed, it certainly wasn’t a common, general occurrence..."
It was part and parcel of Jesus in the early Church's teachings, their way of living out Grace. That we were just talking about dozens, and then later hundreds, and then later thousands acting out that work for justice for the poor and oppressed and marginalized of course the numbers were smaller. But the more people who work on it together, the more common it became. It was a central part of Jesus's message and the early church teachings, however. Do you disagree?
My point is, that there’s a whole lot of things that the prophecy says Jesus is here to do. Once you start separating individual items from the whole, you’re compartmentalizing.
I see the interesting thing you’ve done there. You’ve made it about “humans” “walking in God’s way...”, instead of about Christ fulfilling the prophecy. Now, you could argue that humans do play a role, but that’s not what Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 are about. Once again, you’ve moved the target from Jesus fulfillment of the prophecy to human good works.
Some questions before this goes further.
1. Are you staying categorically they God does not “actively step in” in any way shape or form?
2. Are you saying categorically, that God has never “actively step(per) in” at any time in history?
3. Are you categorically limiting God’s vengeance to “the hell we create”?
4. Are you limiting those who “create” hellyo those who engage in “hyper consumption, greed, and oppression “?
5. Are you categorically denying a future time when God finally and fully redeems all creation and reconciles His sheep to right relationship with Him?
Why not answer those before you get to much further into this.
1. No... not to my way of thinking, I'm not saying that. However, yes, probably to your way of thinking, I am saying that.
I'm saying that God actively acts in this world by the actions of God's body, the church, God's followers. However, we can look around and see that, generally speaking, there is no evidence that God miraculously adds an arm to a man missing an arm, or brings back to life a boy who's been dead for a week. God does not actively send armies of angels to strike down a genocidal ruler who oppresses or kills his own people. Do you disagree?
2. No. I don't know for sure what happened in the past beyond what can be proven. Did God actively and actually cause a great fish to swallow Jonah then calls that great fish the spinning back out so that Jonah could preach to Nineveh? I don't know one way or the other. Maybe it was more of a parable or a work of fiction for the purpose of making a point rather than factual story. Did God actively and actually send an angel of death to kill all the firstborn children of Egypt? I rather doubt it, but we can't prove one way or the other.
All I'm speaking to is what we can see and know by observable data. In this world, we don't see God actively stepping in to take miraculous actions God's own self. Not back then and not now.
Are some of the stories in the Bible that depict miracles factual stories that actually happened, actual miracles by God's own hand? Could be. I just don't know for sure and given the God doesn't change and God does not actively make arms grow back and things like that today, I tend to think those miracle stories are more metaphorical in nature. But maybe. I'm not taking a stand on what I don't know. I'm just speaking about what I do know.
3. No.
4. No.
5. No.
As far as your hunch about vengeance, are you suggesting that the text Jesus referred to was categorically wrong?
Do I look forward to a point where God rights wrongs, dispenses justice, and punished evil, or course I do. Why would I want to see evil not be punished? You can’t serious be suggesting that evil carries no consequences, can you?
I’m suggesting exactly that any significant justice/vengeance will be dispensed in a the future. Because what passes for human dispensed justice is by its very nature flawed.
That’s an interesting hunch, and might be partially correct. The problem you have is, if riches are objectively evil as you’ve contended, then you have God giving His people something inherently bad. I’d also suggest that realizing that the context goes beyond chapter 61, makes your hunch less likely rather than more likely.
I’m not denying that. I’m merely pointing out the obvious that nothing in Jesus earthly ministry, nor in the early Church was ever more than a tiny fraction of the sick and poor. Not only did He/they not release a significant number of prisoners, but a significant number of the disciples, and other people in the early Church actually became prisoners because of their faith in Christ.
I’m merely pointing out that if the only options in your box are the physically sick, the materially poor, and those in physical prison, and you exclude any other possibilities then you have a situation where Jesus actions don’t match His words in Luke 4.
Just to be clear. I’m not the one putting limits on this. I’m not limiting defining Jesus reason for existence by a small portion of a much larger prophecy, and by part of Luke 4. I’m not suggesting that this is exclusively limited to the temporally/materially poor, the physically sick, and those incarcerated in human prisons. I’m even suggesting that some prisoners deserve to not be released from prison.
What I am saying is that if someone is placing this small piece of Luke 4/Isaiah 61 in the box above, then it’s incumbent on them to be consistent and explain the places where that box doesn’t fit the larger context.
Don’t ask me to do your work for you.
“In the Bible, I believe we find God to be defined/ described as a God of love, of grace, of forgiveness, of justice.”
You may choose not to see it, but clearly God’s character isn’t limited (according to scripture) to just the smell list you’ve cherry picked.
C: "are you suggesting that the text Jesus referred to was categorically wrong?"
No.
C: "You can’t serious be suggesting that evil carries no consequences, can you?"
I have not suggested that I do not believe that.
C: "The problem you have is, if riches are objectively evil as you’ve contended, then you have God giving His people something inherently bad."
I have not said that riches are objectively evil. Nor do I believe that.
And again, I am not compartmentalizing anything. Jesus, when he cited this, did not cite all of this passage. Whether he did that by design, because he wanted to emphasize what he emphasized, or for some other reason, I do not know. You would have to ask Jesus. I'm just operating based on what Jesus actually said and not what he might have meant in relation to the rest of Isaiah.
I believe I've answered all of your questions and corrected some misunderstandings you've had. Now, could you answer the questions I asked? Why do you think Jesus spoke to bringing good news specifically to the poor, marginalized, and oppressed?
Also, to a question that you raised, do you think that Jesus is miraculously growing back missing arms or sending angels to wipe out an oppressive army today? If so, can you please cite the data to support that claim? That would be pretty cool, if you had that kind of data.
I’ll first point out that you are making unequivocal claims about God, it’s almost like you’re speaking for Him.
1. To be clear, You are unequivocally claiming that God never has/does/or will act in this world independently of humanity. Are you suggesting that God doesn’t act independently of humans or that He can’t act independently of humans?
2. That’s an impressive amount of waffling. Are you saying that Jesus unequivocally did not restore the sight of the man born blind, or any of the other things He reportedly did?
I see what you’ve done here. You’ve started by making statements about what God can’t:won’t do as if they’re statements of fact. Then you’ve misrepresented the position of those who disagree with you by adding the “generally speaking” disclaimer. After making statements that appear to be statements of fact, you then promptly provide all sorts of reasons why you didn’t say what you said. Further, your statement that “we” haven’t seen any evidence doesn’t allow for people who claim to have seen things that defy human limitations and/or the physical laws. Are you really prepared to offer a rational explanation for things others have seen that have absolutely no human/natural explanation? Or are you prepared to suggest that anyone who makes such a claim is lying? Confused? Insane?
Just to clarify, Are you suggesting that God has not/will not act independently of humans?
It appears that your heading away from the post and moving into other territory. Obviously, my preference would be to stay reasonably close to the point of the post.
If you need that defined, I’ll be happy to.
C: "You are unequivocally claiming that God never has/does/or will act in this world independently of humanity."
To be clear, I am not claiming that.
I am claiming that we have no verifiable data that suggests Hod regularly personally engages in miracle making of the nature of growing back missing arms or sending an angel army to kill off a genocidal human army. I'm asking if you have verifiable data to support claims of that sort of intervention, please let me know.
C: "Are you saying that Jesus unequivocally did not restore the sight of the man born blind, or any of the other things He reportedly did?"
I'm saying that I don't have verifiable data to demonstrate that a supernatural miracle occurred. Maybe it did, maybe not. We can't prove it one way or the other.
I'm saying I have seen no verifiable data that suggests God regularly intervenes in supernatural ways, as in the regrowth of a missing limb.
As to your post, I guess you're not prepared to answer any questions about it? Ok. Thanks.
I’ve addressed so much of this so frequently I can’t believe you’re seriously asking me to do it again,
1. With what we know about the scriptural literacy of 1st century Jews, it’s kind of absurd not to acknowledge that they would realize this as a claim to messiahship, not a social justice manifesto.
2. My problem has never been the few categories you’re so attached to. My problem has been with SJW’s trying to limit those categories. Your responses have demonstrated this point very well. You demand that the poor, the sick, and the prisoners, be placed in a box of a wooden literal interpretation to the exclusion of any other possibility, while spinning fanciful reasons to take the rest of the passage as non literally as possible. Or to place the rest of the passage in a box limited by your preconceptions.
3. I don’t believe, and the rest of Isiah bears this out that Jesus was limiting the Good News as you suggest. If He was, then He didn’t hold up His end of the deal.
As to your question about God acting in our world today, I’ll wait until you clarify a few more things before I answer it any further.
My position is that God isn’t limited in His interaction with His creation. If you’re going to claim otherwise, I’ll guess you’ll be providing that data directly.
Damn you are so freaking impatient. I addressed your demands in a comment that was essentially cross posted and you start your bullshit. If this is how you think grace works, then you have absolutely zero clue.
If you’re going to limit the possibilities of God intervening to regrowing limbs and armies of angels, and misrepresenting my position, then nothing I say will satisfy you.
I’ll try to be clear. I see nothing that would convince me that God is constrained or limited by your demands for evidence.
What I will say is that I’ve personally witnessed something that is so far beyond anything that can be explained by appealing to the natural, that I’m convinced that God’s intervention is the only answer.
The question becomes is my (and others) direct observation of an event that defies the laws of physics evidence enough? Or do I need a signed note from God to convince you that He’s not limited by your box.
Here’s my question. Provide me an explanation of any possible natural explanation of how a 250 lb adult human can fall a law enforcement verified 165’ landing on rocks and survive. I’ll give you a hint, you can google the amount of force generated by the landing as well as the statistical probability of survival.
FYI, we’re not merely talking survival, we’re talking virtually uninjured, no TBI, only two broken bones.
I’ll wait for your answers to this and the questions you’ve chosen not to deal with.
What I’m finding interesting after your recent complaint about putting God in a box, is that you are now arguing for limitations on God, while disparaging me for arguing against limits on God. It just one more instance where you do what you accuse others of doing, then don’t even have the courage to be straightforward.
I’m going to suggest that God does whatever He decides will further His plans and purposes without any regard for what you can prove or not.
Please don’t misunderstand, you’re responding exactly as I thought you would, and treating the text exactly as I thought you would. Hell, even your impatience is predictable at this point.
C: "I’ll try to be clear. I see nothing that would convince me that God is constrained or limited by your demands for evidence."
I'll try to be clear, too.
1. I see nothing that would convince me that God is constrained or limited.
2. I made no demands for evidence.
3. You're still not understanding my words (which as always, makes me wonder about your understanding of biblical words).
4. I'm not putting God in a box, nor have I argued for putting God in a box. I'm sorry if you misunderstood.
I did not argue against anything you've said in your post. I simply raised a few reasonable questions.
Thanks for your thoughts. Happy New Year.
C: " I’m finding interesting after your recent complaint about putting God in a box, is that you are now arguing for limitations on God..."
I literally am not. Look at my words, I made no such suggestions.
I simply asked you why you thought Jesus and Isaiah SPECIFICALLY identified the poor and marginalized as ones who are the target of God's grace in these passages... the target of Jesus' good news in the beginning of his ministry.
I'm not going to suggest that God does or doesn't do anything. I think this came up because I suppose you think God works supernatural healing types of miracles today and I merely said I see no evidence of it. That isn't me saying God can't do it. That isn't me saying that God has never done it. Just that, lacking any hard data to support such a claim, I'm not going to try to force that claim upon God.
...which is not the point of the post, so I'm not sure why you're spending so much time worrying about it.
Just by way of trying to help you see what I actually am saying, as opposed to the multiple claims you've made that I'm NOT saying.
1. Yet, you’re continually arguing for the interpret that most limits God.
2. “Will you please cite the data..,”. Once again your words contradict you.
3. You you keep acting like repeating this mantra makes it true.
4. Yet, your very argument that the “poor, sick, and prisoners” must be interpreted only in the most wooden literal way possible does exactly what you claim you’re not doing.
Well, as we’ve seen Isaiah didn’t specifically limit his prophecy to the three categories you identify. Further, you haven’t demonstrated why your interpretation is strictly limited to those three categories, nor why your limiting of those groups to the most wooden, literal possible interpretation is mandated as the only possible interpretation.
Yet, if you read your words you’re saying exactly that, you just don’t have the courage to follow through.
But it’s cool, if you want to dodge questions and leave my data hanging. It’s pretty much expected.
c: "“Will you please cite the data..,”. Once again your words contradict you."
That I ask YOU to provide support for what YOU APPEAR to be claiming is not the same as me putting limits on God. I'm asking YOU for your support. God has not told me that God is going around doing supernatural miracles.
Once again, you fail to understand my words.
Again, I was not disagreeing with your post. I merely asked reasonable questions. Answer or not, either way is fine.
Peace.
Maybe my use of the same numbers you did was too complex for you. You quite clearly claimed you hadn’t demanded evidence, yet your words demonstrate otherwise. The fact that you had to try this little diversion doesn’t really help you much.
I guess answering the unanswered and ignoring my example is to be expected. As is pretending that you’re not.
C: "You quite clearly claimed you hadn’t demanded evidence"
Maybe my use of words was too complex for you. But I don't know how else to communicate...
That I ask YOU to provide support for what YOU APPEAR to be claiming is not the same as me putting limits on God. I'm asking YOU for YOUR support. God has not told me that God is going around doing supernatural miracles.
I have not demanded evidence FROM GOD, but from you IF you are going to make fact claims.
Peace.
Dan,
Maybe your aversion to accepting when you contradict yourself is your problem. Your connecting to things that aren’t connected because admitting that you’re mistaken is just too hard.
Fact, you demanded evidence.
Fact, you claimed you didn’t.
It’s that simple. But as long as obfuscation keeps you from answering the unanswered and addressing the situation I laid out, I guess it’s working for you. Why stop now?
Sure, if you want to remove all contacts. But in context here is literally what I said.
do you think that Jesus is miraculously growing back missing arms or sending angels to wipe out an oppressive army today?
If so, can YOU please cite the data to support that claim
Can you acknowledge that my question asking for data was from you and not from God? If you're merely noting that I've asked you for data for claims you've made, yes. But what you were suggesting is that was questioning God. There's a difference between God and you. I question you and your fat claims. I don't question God.
Hopefully, you're cool with the idea of people daring to ask you to support your claims. Because, of course, this is reasonable.
I can only conclude that you are being obtuse at this point.
You literally said "I made no demands for evidence."
You also literally said "...please cite the data..."
Those two statements contradict each other. You can play semantics all you want, especially since it gives you an excuse to avoid unanswered questions and dealing with the scenario I asked you about.
I completely understand that your demand for evidence was from me not from God, that wasn't ever an issue.
My problem is not with you questioning God, but with you contradicting yourself.
I'm cool with you asking, I'm less cool with the fact that you rarely support your own claims.
"Why do you think Jesus spoke to bringing good news specifically to the poor, marginalized, and oppressed?"
He didn't. Those are YOUR words. If you're going to ask about what Jesus may have said or why, you might want to stick to exactly the words Scripture records as having been said by Him.
"C: " I’m finding interesting after your recent complaint about putting God in a box, is that you are now arguing for limitations on God..."
I literally am not. Look at my words, I made no such suggestions."
...and yet, you said the following that literally puts limitations on God...puts Him in a box>
"In the Bible, I believe we find God to be defined/ described as a God of love, of grace, of forgiveness, of justice. I don't see God's nature being described as God being a god of vengeance."
That's funny. How could a serious and prayerful study of Scripture have missed this:
The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies. (Nahum 1:2)
Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them. (Deuteronomy 32:35)
O LORD, God of vengeance, God of vengeance, shine forth! (Psalm 94:1)
I will also bring upon you a sword which will execute vengeance for the covenant; and when you gather together into your cities, I will send pestilence among you, so that you shall be delivered into enemy hands. (Leviticus 26:25)
Sharpen the arrows, fill the quivers! The LORD has aroused the spirit of the kings of the Medes, Because His purpose is against Babylon to destroy it; For it is the vengeance of the LORD, vengeance for His temple. (Jeremiah 51:11)
Moses spoke to the people, saying, "Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian to execute the LORD'S vengeance on Midian." (Numbers 31:3)
And those are just a few of the verses the reference God's vengeance. There are still more and as well there are quite a few, to say the least, that mention God's wrath. But still you dismiss those as if they don't exist, as if there's some mistake in what the various Biblical authors meant or meant to say. You're putting God in a box, saying He's only this and not that. You're limiting Him by saying He's one thing and not the other.
There's no way to know one way or the other whether or not God had a fish swallow Jonah, made a donkey talk, sent the Angel of Death to Egypt, healed the sick, made the blind see and the lame to walk, resurrected a dead girl and a dead friend, resurrected Himself. Not a one of those who reported these miracles can be trusted yet Dan believes we can have faith that any of Scripture is true. How can a Christian talk this way? How can a Christian say He believes in a Christ that we really can't trust did what was said of Him? How can a Christian pretend to believe in what the Gospel writers said Jesus preached while being sketchy about what those same writers said He did with regard to the miraculous? There's no more evidence ANY of it is true than there is for the miraculous, so why bother pretending one is a Christian at all?
I know this isn't exactly what the post is about...or maybe it is. Craig speaks to focusing on a part of a prophesy while ignoring the rest. It pretty much captures the reality of Dan's "faith".
Art,
Thanks for the “vengeance” update, those are all clearly wrong and can’t be trusted.
As to your second comment. I think your right. It all comes down to the degree of trust in scripture as an accurate reflection of reality. Beyond that, it does require that we have a God who is actually powerful enough to do things like raise the deaf, heal the sick, etc.
Your final observation is just a coincidence
Art,
One thing that’s come out of this conversation is this endless demands to prove every individual thing individually. When you’ve cast doubt on the reliability of scripture, then every single thing becomes a separate individual battle to be fought again and again.
It seems like these incessant demands for proof is just an update of “Did God really say...”, or the demands for miracles on demand from Jesus. I wonder if we can learn from Jesus response to those who wanted signs and miracles.
Just as a point of reality to deal with Craig's last comment: I have NEVER cast doubt on the "reliability of scripture." You can't find a single place where I've said anything to suggest that.
What I HAVE cast doubt on is the reliability of conservative/traditonalists' interpretations of the bible.
That I doubt that you all always understand the words of the Bible (or the words of liberals, as far as that goes) is NOT the same as casting doubt on the reliability of Scripture.
That you all always assume people disagreeing with YOUR PERSONAL HUMAN interpretations is equivalent to doubting the Bible or God says an awful lot about you all, but not so much about the Bible or my words.
Ok, I get it, your perfect. You’ve never said or done anything, ever, that would cast the slightest bit of doubt on the reliability of scripture.
The problem with your excuses, is that you’re assuming without proof that the interpretation is incorrect. This presumes a few things that you’ve not proven.
1. That the interpretation you say is unreliable is an demonstrably objectively incorrect.
2. That your interpretation is objectively correct.
3. That the actual meaning of any given text differs from the apparent and plain meaning of the text.
4. Your bias is shown by you explicitly only casting doubt on the interpretations from people who hold points of view that you disagree with.
5. Given the reality pointed out in #4, your essentially saying that you disagree with any interpretation by anyone you consider to be “conservative/traditionalist”, before you actually examine the interpretation in question.
Once again, you make statements based on unproven assumptions and expect those statements to be uncritically accepted.
The reality is that the interpretation of scripture is not at all related to your opinion of said interpretation.
Never said I was perfect. Of course. Another instance of you misinterpreting my words/meaning.
I'm just saying that, in the real world, I never said anything that should cause anyone to doubt the Bible, and certainly never said anything with the intent of cast doubt on the reliability of the bible.
I think this is part of the problem. You all see people holding different opinions FROM YOU and YOU interpret that as an attack on the bible, as opposed to what it is: A difference of opinion.
So, for instance, YOUR side holds that the bible teaches that God would disapprove of two gay guys getting married. The bible literally never teaches that, at all. You hold interpretations of some passages that cause you (and many others before you, including me, once upon a time) that make you reach that opinion. But it is factually an interpretation and a human opinion. I hold a different opinion (now). NEITHER of us can prove which way God leans... I think you're clearly mistaken and you think that you can't be mistaken and are correct, and thus, I am wrong. Is that fair?
I can't prove your interpretation is unreliable and you can't prove my interpretation is unreliable. What we CAN do is admit what is an opinion and what is fact. IF you are saying (as Marshal and so many conservatives do) that it is a FACT that God opposes gay guys marrying, you are just mistaken. It is an opinion. I can prove that because, well, it just is.
If you want to assert that it's a fact, then the onus is on you to prove it as a fact. But you can't do that. So, here we are.
Does that see how your questions are off track and can't be answered?
Your 4 and 5 are just factually wrong and silly, given the reality that I WAS a conservative, so, of course, I don't dismiss them since I WAS them.
That’s amazing. You simply re state your unsupported opinions, don’t demonstrate where I’m wrong, and make unproven assertions.
After that tour de force I’ll just give up.
I've been quite clear: I can't PROVE that God supports gay folks getting married. You can't PROVE that God opposes such actions. So, to your 1 and 2...
1. That the interpretation you say is unreliable is an demonstrably objectively incorrect.
2. That your interpretation is objectively correct.
I have not said that I'm objectively right and you're objectively wrong. I've said I think you are CLEARLY wrong and have spent years giving you my reasoning on this. I've pointed out the reality that God never has said God is opposed to gay marriage and that's just a fact. You probably agree those words never appear in the bible AND YET, you think you "know" that God is opposed to marriage and that this is a "fact." But it's clearly factually an opinion (and a bad and irrational and immoral one, I'd suggest). But regardless, it IS an opinion.
Do you recognize that reality? That you can't PROVE your hunches about God and gay guys marrying?
Now here's the point: ME DISAGREEING WITH YOUR HUNCHES about God should not cause anyone to doubt the reliability of Scripture.
Or are you saying that any disagreement over opinions on interpretations of the bible are automatically harmful because they raise doubts about the Bible?
I don't think the Bible or God are as fragile as you appear to think.
So, your entire point hinges on a distinction without a difference.
Here’s why you’re still not understanding.
Whether you want to admit it or not, scripture has a meaning. When God inspired the writers of scripture, He and they had something specific they were trying to communicate. Therefore if someone’s interpretation accurately reflects that intended meaning, it doesn’t matter what their perspective is, they’re simply correct in their interpretation. So, absent proof and a correct interpretation, you have no grounds to say some other interpretation is wrong. You continue to conflate your hunches and feelings with something that has value beyond you.
This continued demand for proof, a standard that you refuse to hold yourself to, is simply your updates version of Satan’s “Did God really say that?”. Asking for something you’ll never accept is just a diversion.
Finally, I know your obsessed with making everything about gay sex, and that you feel compelled to bring it up as often as possible, but how about you not misrepresent what I’ve said about “gay marriage “.?
No, I’m not going to let you drag this further off topic and feed your gay obsession. I’ve addressed this plenty of times, very clearly. If you can’t get it right, then just accept that you’re wrong and stop.
The problem with your entire line of thought is that it’s based on an assumption, which you haven’t proven.
1. That what you call hunches are actually incorrect interpretations.
If you can’t prove that your claims are true, then why should those claims be accepted as fact?
No.
I’ve never indicated that I think the Bible is fragile. Quite the contrary.
"Do you recognize that reality? That you can't PROVE your hunches about God and gay guys marrying?"
First of all, you don't understand the word "hunch", which is a feeling or guess based on intuition rather than known facts. Therefore, our (or at least my) position on God and homosexuals marrying is a "logical conclusion" based on an honest assessment of what Scripture actually says, rather than what it doesn't. As such, we know that God prohibits homosexual behavior (Lev 18:22) without any caveat or exception. There is nothing anywhere in all of Scripture that suggests it refers only to "some form" of behavior or that there is a context or scenario in which it is acceptable behavior. There is nothing in all of Scripture that suggests or hints that "marriage" is anything but a male/female proposition. There is nothing in all of Scripture that suggests that there is any acceptable sexual behavior except that which takes place between a male and his female wife within a marital contract. With all this alone, it is not a "hunch" that God would disapprove of homosexual "marriages". It's a logical conclusion based on an honest acceptance of all the available facts from Scripture on the subject of marriage and human sexuality.
Thus, this makes your position indefensible and not even worthy of the term "hunch". It is simply a conscious disregard for what Scripture teaches on the subject.
Thus, you're not disagreeing with a "hunch", but with Scriptural teaching. That is, you're not doubting the reliability of Scripture on this issue. You're completely rejecting it in favor of a preferred alternative to what it teaches.
In your defense...somewhat...I also refer to this issue often as it is the perfect example of how those like you, contrary to your protests that you don't, reject Scripture where it is inconvenient for you. It's the most blatant example.
Post a Comment