"While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”"
I find it strange that when Jesus is clear about His purpose and ministry, so many choose to deny or ignore His clarity.
In this case, Jesus has called Matthew to be one of His disciples. Jesus chose Matthew for His own reasons, which aren't clear from the text. Yet what is clear is that Jesus CHOSE Matthew as one of the 12 who would be the very foundation of the spreading of The Gospel. As we know, tax collectors were despised and reviled due to the corruption that was part and parcel of their work. By any measure Matthew, as a tax collector, was an agent of the oppressive Roman government who lied and cheated people for personal gain. By any definition it seems safe to say that Matthew wasn't called as Jesus' disciple due to his personal holiness or freedom from sin. It also seems safe to say that Matthew probably wasn't a "good" person. It's almost like Matthew was chosen out of thousands of other people for a specific purpose, you could even say that he was predestined for his role.
As a side note, it's strange to hear those who vehemently object to the very notion of Unconditional Election not object to Jesus (in the NT) or YHWH (in the OT) choosing or electing people for particular roles without condition or without regard for their suitability.
So, back to the calling of Matthew. There doesn't seem to be any reason why he was qualified to be Jesus' disciple, yet Jesus elected him. For some reason, Jesus went to Matthew's house for dinner (which suggests that Matthew probably wasn't particularly poor) and Matthew invited his friends and fellow tax collectors. This seems much like a similar response to the Samaritan woman who, after her encounter with Jesus, told her entire village about this great "prophet". Matthew seemingly wanted his friends to experience what he experienced.
Obviously the Pharisees didn't like this, and were looking for dirt on Jesus. Once again, Jesus has the perfect answer to their question. He points out that He has come to call sinners to repentance, which clearly wasn't a priority for the Jewish religious leaders. When asked, Jesus is clear that He isn't doing this to attract the (self) "righteous", but "sinners". It seems clear in hindsight, that Jesus was pointing out subtly that the Pharisees were also "sinners", even as they believed themselves to be "righteous". Strangely enough, nowhere in this interaction does Jesus mention the "poor and marginalized" which raises the bigger question of "Why not?".
I suspect that it was because The Gospel He brought was equally valid and necessary for tax collectors, sinners, oppressors, oppressed, poor, middle class, and rich. That The Gospel was even for Pharisees.
Maybe Jesus was much more of a both/and when it came to The Gospel than some would like to acknowledge. Jesus and The Gospel He preached was clearly exclusive to some, but maybe the lines Jesus drew were not based on political, social, or economic conditions, but on something else.
78 comments:
Thanks for your thoughts, Craig. May I offer some of my observations?
In this case, Jesus has called Matthew to be one of His disciples. Jesus chose Matthew for His own reasons, which aren't clear from the text.
Agreed.
Yet what is clear is that Jesus CHOSE Matthew as one of the 12 who would be the very foundation of the spreading of The Gospel.
Agreed. This happens (in Luke) in Luke 5, just a little after Jesus declared that he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized in Chapter 4. And Jesus was clearly actively involved in that in Chapter 4, and was becoming quite well known and beloved by "the people..." the typical workers and poor of that society.
That is then followed by Jesus beginning to select his disciples who would help him in that mission, in delivering that good news.
As we know, tax collectors were despised and reviled due to the corruption that was part and parcel of their work.
Agreed.
By any measure Matthew, as a tax collector, was an agent of the oppressive Roman government who lied and cheated people for personal gain. By any definition it seems safe to say that Matthew wasn't called as Jesus' disciple due to his personal holiness or freedom from sin. It also seems safe to say that Matthew probably wasn't a "good" person.
Probably. At the least, it seems safe to note that Matthew was an imperfect person who was part of an oppressive system and Jesus invited Matthew to leave that life behind and come follow him. And Matthew did so.
And we also see in that chapter the beginnings of his conflicts with the religious leaders and legalists. These same legalists objected to Jesus eating with the sinners, as you noted.
And so, it seems to me that by Luke 5, we have a few things happening:
* Jesus has made it clear he's come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized;
* Jesus has started having some conflicts with the religious leaders and legalists and those in power;
* "The people" have largely been impressed that this poor carpenter was on the side of the poor and marginalized and a following had begun;
* Jesus starts calling disciples to help preach this good news that he said he'd come to proclaim;
Even if you might disagree with parts of that, can you see how someone might reach these conclusions based on what HAS happened and also, on what we know WILL happen further into the Gospel story?
More...
Craig:
I find it strange that when Jesus is clear about His purpose and ministry, so many choose to deny or ignore His clarity.
I DO agree that Jesus is clear about his purpose and ministry and I certainly don't choose to deny or ignore his clarity. But I don't know that you and I agree on what that purpose and ministry were, as intended by Jesus, as we understand it.
Craig:
It's almost like Matthew was chosen out of thousands of other people for a specific purpose, you could even say that he was predestined for his role.
I personally don't think that conclusion is insisted upon, but if you want to think that, it's fine with me. I'd say that's one possible guess on an unproven topic. Is that a fair disagreement?
Craig:
it's strange to hear those who vehemently object to the very notion of Unconditional Election not object to Jesus (in the NT) or YHWH (in the OT) choosing or electing people for particular roles without condition or without regard for their suitability.
I have no thoughts about this comment or notion. It's a foreign way of thinking, to me. In this story, we find Jesus beginning to have a following and out of those many followers, Jesus starting to choose some specific disciples. I don't see any indication of Jesus' reasoning. My guess is that it looks like Jesus is going out of his way to select a range of followers from different roles, but that's just a guess. I have no opinions on notions of the human theories of "election" as it relates to this story.
Craig:
This seems much like a similar response to the Samaritan woman who, after her encounter with Jesus, told her entire village about this great "prophet". Matthew seemingly wanted his friends to experience what he experienced.
Agreed. I think that Jesus' "good news to the poor and marginalized" that he said he'd come to preach was having a positive impact upon many of the common folk of the land, including even some who had been involved and enriched themselves in systems of abuse before Jesus invited them to leave that behind.
Respectfully submitted, with more opinions respectfully submitted later, if that's okay.
I think perhaps we could agree that it's a good question to ask, What WAS Jesus' Good News to the poor and oppressed that he began his ministry with, at least in the Luke Gospel?
And perhaps we could agree that Jesus never makes a clear statement of a set of beliefs and tenets and doctrines that were part of his good news, at least as they appear in the various gospel stories?
What's happening in Luke, leading up to Matthew's call to be a disciple? This might be helpful for establishing context, perhaps?
In Luke 1, we have the stories of Elizabeth and Mary becoming pregnant. Two common women, not high leaders or authorities. When Mary finds out she's pregnant and with a special God-child, she sings a song which goes, in part, like this...
My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for God has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant...
God's mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
God has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
God has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
God has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
God has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty..."
The song of the very young Mary, a woman of no importance in that society.
Likewise, Zechariah sings a song which mostly seems to be thanking God for not forgetting the Jewish people, long oppressed by this time in history. His song goes, in part...
"you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High;
for you will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him,
to give his people the knowledge of salvation
through the forgiveness of their sins,
because of the tender mercy of our God,
by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven
to shine on those living in darkness
and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the path of peace.”
"To shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death."
It might reasonably be concluded that Jesus' mother and uncle considered themselves a part of a long oppressed group, looking for salvation, love, forgiveness and peace, and believing that is coming.
Do you find this a reasonable conclusion, based upon the text and context?
Then, in Luke 2, we have Jesus' birth, a poor child to two poor, common parents, being celebrated by common folks like shepherds. And we find Jesus growing up as an astonishing, wise child, there was something different about him. But no real sense of a message, just that he was odd and a good child and interested in the Scriptures/OT teachings.
In Luke 3, we have some of the story of John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin. John is teaching about repentance and forgiveness, about following God... we find John rebuking the rich and powerful and inviting them to live simpler lives and to stop oppressing the poor. And John baptizes Jesus. But we don't hear anything of Jesus' message in this chapter, either. Do you think that's a fair reading?
So, leading up to chapter four, we have nothing directly from Jesus, but we have Mary and Zechariah talking about how God will deliver the poor and oppressed from the rich and oppressive, and we have John preaching a message of repentance and inviting the rich and powerful to stop, and repent and join this Way that is NOT abusive of the poor and marginalized.
Do you think that's a fair reading of the first three chapters of Luke? Do you see any hint of Jesus' Gospel in those chapters from Jesus? Do you think that Jesus might have been influenced by what we've heard from Mary, Zechariah and John?
Given all that, then we find ourselves at Chapter 4, we start to hear more directly from Jesus what his "gospel" is. We learn that Jesus had some degree of fame or acclaim (and some mistrust) that had begun to spread about him.
The chapter begins with a story that says Jesus retreated to the wilderness for 40 days of prayer and fasting and there is a story about him being tempted by "the devil." The devil tempts Jesus with fame, vanity, power and food, but Jesus turns away from those temptations.
Then Jesus returns from this spiritual retreat and apparently begins his ministry and immediately, the text tells us:
Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him."
That was fast! No indication of how long this time was that I can tell, but it seems like he came pretty popular/controversial, pretty fast. He was traveling in the Capernaum, Nazareth areas, about 40 miles apart, I believe. Or from "the wilderness" where he was tempted to Nazareth, which is about 60 miles, I believe.
It says he was preaching in the countryside as he traveled. So, he was wandering around, on foot, preaching from place to place, it sounds like.
But all of that occurs in a short paragraph after his temptation story. There are no mentions of specifics, just that he was drawing attraction. Both good and bad, as we later know to be true.
THAT is when Jesus begins his more overt, clear talks about his Gospel, his good news. We've learned that he's preached and that he's gained some popularity, but not what the message was.
Then, in Nazareth, he enters the temple and reads from Isaiah 58, the passage about how God is setting things right for the poor and oppressed, and Jesus says THAT is his gospel, his good news for the poor and oppressed. A message that was well received by the poor and oppressed "common" people, but that was not well received by the religious elite.
The "AI" summary of how ancient rabbis would have viewed Isaiah 58 is this:
Ancient rabbis viewed Isaiah 58 as a condemnation of empty religious ritual when contrasted with a life of social justice and compassion, particularly for the poor.
They understood the "good news" not as a promise of blessing for mere observance, but as a direct response from God to those who truly "share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house"
That is the first direct hint from Jesus about what his Good News is, and at least to me, it sounds fairly clear... especially given what we've already heard from Mary, Zechariah and John the B.
Can you see how some would take it that way, given the text and context thus far?
Those are some of my opinions about these first five chapters of Luke, leading up to the Matthew dinner story. I'll stop there, lest I wear out my welcome. I am trying very hard to be respectful and polite and simply offering my understanding as you've offered yours. I hope it's coming across as the good faith explanation that it's intended to be.
Thanks.
"May I offer some of my observations?"
As I've consistently told you that (absent specific circumstances) I will post your comments, you are starting off with a bizarre question. You can and do regularly offer observations, which is not the same as your observations being accurate, supported, or proven.
I can see how someone might reach those conclusions by obsessively focusing on one aspect of Jesus' ministry.
"Is that a fair disagreement?"
You'd probably consider it "fair", because it's your hunch. It's incredibly gracious for you to allow me to reach my own conclusions based on the entirety of scripture.
"I have no thoughts about this comment or notion."
Then it's strange that you would follow this announcement by sharing your thoughts on a "comment or notion" about which you have "no thoughts".
"I think that"
As usual, anything that follows "I think" is something that I usually ignore.
"Respectfully submitted, with more opinions respectfully submitted later, if that's okay."
I can't decide if this is obsequious, snarky, or disrespectful. I can decide that it's annoying and a waste of time.
Blah, blah, blah.
"I think perhaps we could agree that it's a good question to ask, What WAS Jesus' Good News to the poor and oppressed that he began his ministry with, at least in the Luke Gospel?"
Of course you think it's a "good question" because it presupposes your unproven hunch that Jesus' Gospel was primarily/exclusively focused on/through/about exclusively the materially poor and politically marginalized.
We could, but I see no reason to. I can think of multiple clear, specific, statements that Jesus made about His ministry. The problem, is that those statements (as with the one in this example) don't support your "poor and marginalized" hunch.
"What's happening in Luke, leading up to Matthew's call to be a disciple? This might be helpful for establishing context, perhaps?"
Only if you think that cherry picking two examples that happened @27 years before Jesus called Matthew to be a disciple, while excluding others somehow magically proves something.
I could mention that whole “And she shall bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins.” , might tend to both undermine your hunch, as well as provide one of the earliest statements of Jesus' purpose. Or we could just look at the meaning of the name Jesus and perhaps tease out something from that clear and unambiguous statement.
I find it reasonable within the context of the construct you've created and apply to Scripture. I find it reasonable as long as you don't try to act as if any of these hunches are anything but your personal, subjective, individual hunches informed by your biased reading of the text based on cherry picking texts out of context.
"Do you think that's a fair reading of the first three chapters of Luke?"
As you define "fair", you probably believe that to be True. It's a cursory, biased, and incomplete reading paraphrased to presumably support your unproven hunch, but I'm sure you believe that it's "fair".
"Do you see any hint of Jesus' Gospel in those chapters from Jesus?"
1. Why jump to Luke in order to give context to Matthew?
2. The audience for Luke and Matthew are completely different, which likely affects that tone, style, and focus.
3. The "you shall call His name Jesus" story is in Luke as well, yet you ignore that and the literal meaning of the name Jesus.
4. While those narratives might be present to some degree, they do not limit Jesus' ministry to ONLY those parameters.
"Do you think that Jesus might have been influenced by what we've heard from Mary, Zechariah and John?"
“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish his work."
"By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."
"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."
“Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”
"He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
I could be wrong, but Jesus seems pretty clear that He is all about doing the work that YHWH sent Him to do. While it's foolish to believe that Jesus' earthly family had zero influence on Him, He was clear that He was about the work of His Father, not of Mary, John, and Zecheriah.
"there is a story about him being tempted by "the devil." "
Are you suggesting that the "story" is somehow not an accurate representation of the actual events?
Are you suggesting that Satan (more properly The Satan) does not exist?
"The devil tempts Jesus with fame, vanity, power and food, but Jesus turns away from those temptations."
Actually that's not quite accurate. Jesus is recorded as quoting the Hebrew Scriptures in His responses. To many people, obviously not you, that seems significant.
"in the power of the Spirit"
I know that you are not a person who puts a lot of stock in the miraculous or supernatural aspects of Jesus' ministry, but it seems like a case could be made that the whole "power of the Spirit" thing might explain this phenomenon.
"It says he was preaching in the countryside as he traveled."
It says, "He was teaching in their synagogues," (A side note, the practice of teaching in synagogues or the Temple was common to Jesus, The Apostles, and Paul), it says "news about him spread through the whole countryside", not that He was "teaching in the countryside". Although, it seems reasonable that He did "teach" outside of Synagogues, it's not what the text you quoted actually says.
Yes, Captain Obvious, after Jesus was tempted in the wilderness He began His public ministry.
"Then, in Nazareth, he enters the temple..."
The Temple (there was only one) was in Jerusalem, not Nazareth. The Temple, and synagogue are not synonymous.
"Can you see how some would take it that way, given the text and context thus far?"
I can see how you would take it that way. I can, presumably you can too, see how others would look at those snippets in the larger context of both the Hebrew Scriptures, and the rest of Jesus' earthly ministry and conclude that this is not the sum total of Jesus' ministry.
It's still bizarre that you have to get your context for the Matthew passage entirely from Luke, especially given the fact that Matthew was written primarily to a Jewish audience and Luke was written primarily to a Gentile audience. While there are commonalities between the synoptics, it seems reasonable to conclude that Matthew and Luke would treat things differently. Not that you can't get context across the synoptics, but to fail to take audience into account seems problematic. If one is going to proof text like this, it seems like Mark would be the better choice.
For now, I just wish to add that it isn't at all peculiar or a negative for the religious leaders to question Jesus' choice of associating with sinners. I feel extremely confident the literally "poor and marginalized" wondered about it as well.
Also, Dan again, as always, tries to make "the poor and marginalized" the target of Christ's ministry. Unlike Dan's analysis, John the Baptist absolutely speaks to Christ's purpose. John preached "repent, for the day of the Lord is near!" And when Jesus arrives on the scene for the first time, John says, "Behold the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the World!"
THAT is the "Good News" and Christ confirms it in the Nazareth temple by referring to Himself as the Messiah (the annointed one). His reading wasn't about "the poor and marginalized". It was Christ announcing Who He was to the people. That the prophesy of His Coming was fulfilled.
His ministry was about the Kingdom and about healing the rift between man and God formed by Adam's sin...that HE was the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no one comes to the Father but through the Son.
Craig:
It's still bizarre that you have to get your context for the Matthew passage entirely from Luke
You didn't cite a particular source in your original post. I happen to be a fan of Luke's Gospel (hey, I'm a Gentile, after all!) and so I went with that one. Because Luke also covers the dinner at Matthew's house, and in his Gospel, it shows up closer to the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Luke 4, Jesus' ministry begins, Luke 5, Matthew's dinner... as opposed to Matthew's version where Jesus begins his ministry in chapter 4 and then, WAY later, Matthew is invited to the party in Chapter 9... which might indicate that Matthew might not have been there for Jesus' seminal sermon on the Mount?... as an aside).
Thus, I used Luke's version of the story because I like Luke's Gospel best and it's just a more concise telling of the story leading up to Matthew's call, as much as anything. I'm not sure why that's bizarre, but, hey, I like bizarre, so, cool.
And yes, the different gospel books had different audiences. Agreed.
Craig:
The Temple (there was only one) was in Jerusalem, not Nazareth. The Temple, and synagogue are not synonymous.
Thanks for the correct and, agreed. Just a slip of the tongue, so to speak.
Craig:
I can, presumably you can too, see how others would look at those snippets in the larger context of both the Hebrew Scriptures, and the rest of Jesus' earthly ministry and conclude that this is not the sum total of Jesus' ministry.
Yes, of course, others can and have done that. And I'm not saying it's the sum total of Jesus' ministry. It's just that for me and many others, it is a very central, vital and important theme of Jesus' ministry as recorded in the Gospels. And we reach that conclusion in good faith efforts of understanding the Bible. Some of us even reach that conclusion after being raised for years or decades even in a more traditional conservative understanding, and we do so in good faith.
Can you see how that's possible, even if you don't agree with us and our conclusions? Just as I see how it's possible (even when I don't agree with you and your conclusions) to have your theories and interpretations of Jesus' story and teachings. Again, after all, I held those conclusions and shared those interpretations for nearly half my life... and I held them in good faith. I just now think I was mistaken then and have a better, more biblically consistent, more "Jesus-ian" understanding now.
After I cited the words of Mary, Zechariah and, to a lesser degree, John the Baptist and Isaiah, all speaking of rescuing the poor and oppressed, Craig replied:
I could be wrong, but Jesus seems pretty clear that He is all about doing the work that YHWH sent Him to do. While it's foolish to believe that Jesus' earthly family had zero influence on Him, He was clear that He was about the work of His Father, not of Mary, John, and Zecheriah.
But what if the work of God, the Parent, WAS very much tied to rescuing the poor and oppressed and marginalized? What if - as I think the whole of the Bible clearly teaches, and as especially demonstrated by Jesus - God truly DOES love the entire world and wants ALL to be saved (as Jesus and others have noted) and that this salvation BEGINS with welcoming and being an ally with the poor and marginalized? WHEN the rich oppressors (humans who God loves) do as Matthew did and LEFT BEHIND his tools of oppression and joined in with Jesus in preaching literal good news to the literal poor and oppressed, THEY too are being saved. NOT by works, but by that Way of Grace, of welcome, of inclusion, of love and forgiveness.
There's an incredible scene in the movie The Mission that I think is appropriate here. If you haven't seen it, Jeremy Irons is a 17th (?) century priest who is working with the native folks in South America. Robert DeNiro plays a slave trader who has gotten wealthy off of enslaving those very same native folks. The natives know this man and hate what he's done to their people, the murders, the cruelties, the slavery.
At some point, DeNiro kills his brother and is destroyed with guilt and grief at how very evil and awful a man he is. He goes to the priests but doesn't repent, he just lies down, stops eating and waits to die. Jeremy Iron, also knowing this man as the vulgar, oppressive slaver that he is, has compassion on him nonetheless. He tells DeNiro, You CAN be saved. Being Catholic, DeNiro responds, "NO. I'm too vile. There is NO penance I can perform. Let me die and go to hell, as I deserve."
Nonetheless, Irons persisted and convinced DeNiro to pack up all his armor and weapons of war and slavery and to carry them ON HIS BACK all the treacherous way up the mountainside to meet with the people he'd been enslaving. He struggles up this impossible path and once he reaches the village, the people there recognizes him as their enslaver. One of the young men runs up to DeNiro, who has fallen down under the weight of his pack, his journey and his guilt, and puts a knife to his throat. The villagers all watch and wait and look at DeNiro. They see in this vile, defeated slaver, a wretch in need of compassion, not murder, not "justice." And then, the man with the knife at DeNiro's throat CUTS the rope that had tied all his weapons of war to his back and they fell down the hill. He was FREED from his evil, oppressive, profiteering ways BY FALLING at the feet of the people he'd enslaved. They embraced him and welcome him to join them in their community, their village. They ate with him, they loved him, they forgave him.
DeNiro's character was saved, NOT by a penance, NOT by works, but by joining in the welcoming way of Grace and accepting the forgiveness of the very people he'd oppressed.
Beautiful.
And so, what IF that is precisely the Work of God that Jesus was called to... the good news FOR ALL that begins precisely, literally with the poor and oppressed, as Jesus said?
Can you see how for some of us, this is precisely the message we understand in our good faith efforts to follow Jesus, as recorded in the Bible?
Art,
Good point. Jesus did all sorts of things that upset the narrative and conventions of His time. Not the least of which was to ignore the calls for Him to assume the mantle of an earthly king, free the oppressed of Israel, and rule Israel. He obviously could have done so, and could have taken care of the "poor and marginalized" that way. Yet He chose a path that eschewed earthly power and rule for a criminal's death on a cross.
As you point out, Dan chooses not to mention anything in any of the narrative regarding Jesus' early life that doesn't align with his hunches. I agree that Jesus reading of the Isiah passage is significant for what He said after the reading.
FYI, there was only one Temple and it was is Jerusalem.
The literal title of the post was "Matthew", but whatever.
I'm sure it was a "slip of the tongue".
"it is a very central, vital and important"
Given that it is literally the only aspect of the gospel you ever talk about, this comes off as disingenuous at best.
The problem is that you insist that the "poor and marginalized" aspect is "central, vital and important", yet continually argue against anyone who suggests that it was only one part of Jesus' ministry.
"Can you see how that's possible, even if you don't agree with us and our conclusions?"
Given the breadth and depth of things that "christians" believe (let alone the Mormon, JW, and christian adjacent craziness), it doesn't surprise me at all that you can arrive at your hunches and cling to them so strongly. As usual, the problem comes when you pretend that your hunches are right (or more right) than others or that other's conclusions are wrong.
Well, by all means revel in your pride and self congratulation.
Craig asked some questions:
Are you suggesting that the "story" is somehow not an accurate representation of the actual events?
I do not know that it represents a literal event or the "visions" that happen to human bodies (acknowledging that Jesus was literally a human, just as I believe him to literally be God) when they go in a desert region for 40 days without eating. It's a meaningful event, whether or not it literally happened. Do you agree?
Are you suggesting that Satan (more properly The Satan) does not exist?
I do not believe in a magical powerful demon called Satan as an actual Being. I do not see any evidence for such an entity to be an actual real presence. I know many others Do believe in that. I ultimately don't think an actual "Satan" is a faithful understanding of the various biblical texts that speak of "demons" "Lucifer" an "angel of light" "beelzebub" or Satan, by any other name. One can love ALL the biblical texts and not take them all literally.
I had said:
"I think perhaps we could agree that it's a good question to ask, What WAS Jesus' Good News to the poor and oppressed that he began his ministry with, at least in the Luke Gospel?"
Craig replied:
Of course you think it's a "good question" because it presupposes your unproven hunch that Jesus' Gospel was primarily/exclusively focused on/through/about exclusively the materially poor and politically marginalized.
To be clear, the reason I think it's a good question is because IF we plan to promote Jesus' good news, THEN it's important to understand what Jesus meant by that. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. I feel confident that we can agree that it's important to understand the nature of a Gospel we hope to preach/promote.
"After I cited the words of Mary, Zechariah and, to a lesser degree, John the Baptist and Isaiah, all speaking of rescuing the poor and oppressed, Craig replied:"
Yes, you cited some things that those people said, and absolutely nothing that Jesus said. I always thought you gave more weight to what Jesus said, and less to what others said. My bad.
"But what if the work of God, the Parent, WAS very much tied to rescuing the poor and oppressed and marginalized?"
If that is the case, why did YHWH (The Father) not do so in any meaningful way? Certainly not on any large scale. Why did Jesus Himself acknowledge that the problem of the "poor and marginalized" would "be with us always"? Is YHWH incapable of eradicating poverty and marginalization?
"What if - as I think the whole of the Bible clearly teaches, and as especially demonstrated by Jesus - God truly DOES love the entire world and wants ALL to be saved..."
I guess that depends on what you are claiming that "ALL" are "to be saved from"?
If, as you seem to be suggesting, YHWH want's "ALL to be saved", the you are left with two options. Either "ALL" are "saved" (obviously "saved" is vague and undefined here), or all are not "saved". If it's the first, then how can it be argued that a just God treats Hitler and Dan to the exact same salvation. If it's the second then you posit a God who is unwilling, unable, or incapable of achieving His goal. Please explain which of these two you are arguing for.
"...and that this salvation BEGINS with welcoming and being an ally with the poor and marginalized?"
When exactly does "this salvation" BEGIN?
Welcoming the "poor and marginalized" into what exactly?
What do you base your contention that "salvation" is a process on?
"WHEN the rich oppressors (humans who God loves) do as Matthew did and LEFT BEHIND his tools of oppression and joined in with Jesus in preaching literal good news to the literal poor and oppressed,"
Yet Matthew, nor any of the other apostles, preached that "literal good news" exclusively to the "poor and oppressed". You're assuming facts not in evidence.
"THEY too are being saved. NOT by works, but by that Way of Grace, of welcome, of inclusion, of love and forgiveness."
Again, without a specific, and precise definition of "saved" this sentence literally means nothing coherent.
We know that Jesus and The Church did not "save" people on a large scale from poverty and oppression. We know that The Church was literally oppressed, and that Jesus literally told His followers to expect "oppression" and persecution. By your construct, Jesus couldn't save Himself from the oppressive hand of the Roman empire. But whatever.
"...by joining in the welcoming way of Grace and accepting the forgiveness of the very people he'd oppressed."
So, this non works based "salvation" (still undefined) required that he perform the works of joining the (also undefined) "welcoming way of grace" and "accepting the forgiveness...", gotcha.
"And so, what IF that is precisely the Work of God that Jesus was called to... the good news FOR ALL that begins precisely, literally with the poor and oppressed, as Jesus said?"
One, I don't waste a lot of time on hypotheticals. Two, Jesus literally did not say that (salvation/good news) "began" with the "poor and oppressed". You clearly believe this to be the case, but you cannot prove (especially with one proof text) your hunch to be objectively, factually, and exclusively True.
"Can you see how for some of us, this is precisely the message we understand in our good faith efforts to follow Jesus, as recorded in the Bible?"
Can you see how for some of us, your practice of asking the same question multiple times before anyone could possibly answer it to be frustrating and unhelpful?
You can see my response above if you're not to lazy or confused.
"It's a meaningful event, whether or not it literally happened. Do you agree?"
Do I agree that the presentation of a fictional event attributed as a significant part of the story of Jesus is as equally "meaningful" as if it had happened, no. Do I agree that you can construct a fantasy world where you personally ascribe meaning to this story regardless of it's veracity, sure.
So the answer to my question as asked is, no.
The rest is just you trying to assert that what you "believe" based on your limited abilities and subjective experience, should be somehow given a level of credence beyond what is justified. Gotcha.
Craig:
The literal title of the post was "Matthew", but whatever.
Yes, your post was titled MATTHEW and spoke of the PERSON, the disciple, Matthew. Matthew's story is found in all four Gospels. Are you suggesting one should ONLY look at Matthew's version of Matthew's story found in the Gospel of Matthew when considering the story?
I'm sure we can agree that it's useful to look at ALL four gospels in considering the story of Jesus and that, when talking about the story of the dinner at Matthew's house, there's nothing wrong with looking at Luke's version.
The stories, after all, essentially the same, but Luke's version has at least one additional detail. When called, Matthew records Matthew as following him. Luke records it THIS way:
After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him,
and Levi got up,
left everything
and followed him.
The bold part is added in Luke's story. Can you see how that might be considered an important additional detail and worthy of consideration?
Another additional note: Whereas both stories report that the Pharisees/legalists asked questions of Jesus' followers, Luke contains the additional line which helps clarify intent, saying these legalists "complained to his disciples." That is, it wasn't a simple question asked in earnest wonder, it was a complaint. Which is just added to the litany of complaints, moving on up to attacks against Jesus, making it clear that many of these legalists were actively hostile towards Jesus and his way of Grace, his good news for the poor and marginalized. Keeping in mind that it was THEIR system that kept the poor and marginalized, poor and marginalized. That, too, is a key point to remember and Luke helps make that case more clear.
In Matthew's defense, HE is the one that adds this bit of information, including the reference to Hosea. Where they both refer to "it's the sick who need a doctor..." Matthew includes this little sting on the Religionists:
"But go and learn what this means:
‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’
For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
A clear slapback to the Legalists and Religionists, who of course, would KNOW that passage, but perhaps Matthew is helping make clear Jesus' intent that they know the passage, but fail to understand and follow its intent.
It's reasons like this that make it worthwhile to look at all versions of the stories told and the context it was told in. A point that I'd bet we can agree upon.
Based on other conversations, it seems safe to say that you are (at best) skeptical and (at worst) dismissive of any non physical reality and non physical beings that you cannot personally experience with your limited facilities. Would this be a reasonably accurate conclusion?
It would seem like the only source for the account of Jesus in the wilderness would have been Jesus Himself recounting it to His disciples. Given that, it seems strange that Jesus would treat what you call "visions" as if they were actual events, and to tell His disciples (for inclusion in future communication) about events that didn't actually happen.
Craig asked a question and I answered. Craig replied:
So the answer to my question as asked is, no.
No, that is literally not my answer to your question. I don't think I was unclear. My answer was:
I do not know that it represents a literal event or the "visions" that happen to human bodies...
I don't know is my actual answer. I TEND to not think so because I don't believe in a literal Satan being, so the Vision Quest response is the more rational answer and does nothing to harm the story as told.
Just to respectfully be as clear as possible.
That you think that it is a "good question" is so blindingly obvious as to be a waste of time to say it. That you have a history of announcing that many of your questions are, in fact, a singular "The Question" indicates that you value your questions incredibly highly. However, your assumption that others must agree with your subjective hunches is a bridge to far.
That you have concocted a hypothetical reason why your question is "good", doesn't automatically make your question objectively "good".
I do agree that understanding the entirety of The Gospel is a good thing. Yet I don't limit the propagation of The Gospel, or the work of the Holy Spirit, to our ability to gain some sort of understanding of The Gospel. I certainly don't limit my understanding of The Gospel to your subjective hunches.
It's so refreshing when you waste time and effort to write a lengthy post which essentially agrees with me.
"Are you suggesting that the "story" is somehow not an accurate representation of the actual events?"
The above is the exact, literal, specific question that I had asked.
Your response is "I do not know...". So, the reality is, that you are not suggesting is not an accurate representation.
That you justify your answer by your hunch about The Satan as a literal being isn't particularly relevant to the question asked. Likewise, your "belief" is simply that, nothing more.
You were as clear as I believe that you are capable of.
Craig asked some questions:
If that is the case, why did YHWH (The Father) not do so in any meaningful way?
I disagree with that conclusion. I think that God has ALWAYS been active in the lives and concerns of the poor and oppressed.
As a point of observable reality, God has never demonstrably, provably stepped in God's OWN Self and stopped an army from killing children and other innocents. God has never personally stepped in and fed people that can be objectively proven. And THAT is a reasonable question to ask. But we can see throughout all of history, that hasn't been probably done by God.
BUT, what God HAS done is teach us to look out for each other. God has taught US to side with/partner with/lend aid to the poor and oppressed. God has taught US not to oppress.
And to the degree that we humans, throughout history, have taken these lessons from God seriously, God HAS saved countless lives and fed innumerable folks who were hungry. God HAS stopped oppression and slavery and starvation and loneliness, in the lives of those who follow the teachings of Jesus/God.
Do you agree that, in THAT sense, God has done a tremendous amount of salvation of the poor and marginalized?
Certainly not on any large scale. Why did Jesus Himself acknowledge that the problem of the "poor and marginalized" would "be with us always"?
You'd have to ask Jesus his motivation. I think it's clear, though, that an imperfect humanity in an imperfect world WILL always have poor and marginalized folks. There are always illnesses happening, always floods washing away homes, always bad actors who will seek to oppress, steal and harm.
Which is all the more reason why we should heed Jesus' Good news for the poor and marginalized. In THAT way, we are God's hands and feet. WE are God's light in this world.
I don't know why God doesn't act God's own Self, but we can see that God doesn't do so directly, not in any widespread, objectively provable manner.
Is YHWH incapable of eradicating poverty and marginalization?
I don't think so. And yet, we see that God has never done that personally. Rather, God has taught we HUMANS to do that. And God has been clear and unequivocal on that point, throughout the biblical witness, if that means something to us. And clearly, I think it means a lot to you. Am I right?
My questions respectfully asked back to you:
Do you think God is incapable of providing help directly to the poor?
Do you think God has taught US to do that, clearly, repeatedly throughout the pages of the biblical witness?
More Craig questions (GREAT questions, seems to me... thanks for asking them!):
I guess that depends on what you are claiming that "ALL" are "to be saved from"?
Oppression, cruelty, harm, hate, destruction, murder, rape... things way more harmful than the mere "missing the mark of perfection" that sin encompasses. My answer would be Sin, I guess, but sin, rightly understood.
When exactly does "this salvation" BEGIN?
When we accept Grace. When we welcome, when we join in dinners together, when we forgive, when we love... these ACTIONS come when and as we accept grace. "You will know them by their love."
Welcoming the "poor and marginalized" into what exactly?
Into a beloved community, the realm of God where Love, Grace, Justice and Forgiveness lives. Heaven, if you will. But heaven, rightly understood.
What do you base your contention that "salvation" is a process on?
I didn't use the word Process, you did. Salvation is an acceptance of Grace, I think is the ultimate biblical teaching and rational conclusion. I will note that there are quotes from Luke (in Acts 2) and Paul (in 1 Cor 1 and 2 Cor 2) where they use the phrase "They are BEING SAVED..." that makes it sound like a process, and that might be one way of looking at it or phrasing it, but ultimately, I think it is an acceptance of Grace.
Thanks. Great questions.
Craig theorized (about the story of the Temptation of Jesus):
Given that, it seems strange that Jesus would treat what you call "visions" as if they were actual events, and to tell His disciples (for inclusion in future communication) about events that didn't actually happen.
I am not an expert on the historic understanding of ancient people who had "visions" throughout the centuries... I don't know if they believed those things they "saw" were literal realities, if they were more like dreams or if it just didn't matter to them. It was THEIR experience and that is enough.
But I suspect the answer to that is that various visions and hallucinations that people experience in extreme circumstances like lengthy fasts were just for the experience and what they knew was that it WAS their experience. I suspect that they didn't have any need to define it as "Did this really happen or not..."? Because, why would they?
In short, I don't suspect that Jesus would need or cause to say, "By the way, this was a vision, not something that literally happened..." You may suspect otherwise, but I don't think that would be anthropologically required, reasonably speaking.
In other words, that would be reading INTO ancient ways, modern notions that just wouldn't be part of their world. Have you read any research on ancient traditions that led to visions? It would be interesting to read more on the practice. I've read enough to know it was a thing, but not to know what the actual people at the time thought of it. Let me know if you find any research.
"I disagree with that conclusion. I think that God has ALWAYS been active in the lives and concerns of the poor and oppressed."
So what. The fact remains that Jesus and His disciples did not even attempt to eradicate hunger, poverty, or oppression during His earthly ministry. Jesus, in fact, rebuked people who followed Hims only for free food and miracles.
But, by all means, be specific.
"BUT, what God HAS done is teach us to look out for each other. God has taught US to side with/partner with/lend aid to the poor and oppressed. God has taught US not to oppress."
Interesting that you are appealing to words in a book written by humans and expecting those words to be treated as rules to be followed.
"Do you agree that, in THAT sense, God has done a tremendous amount of salvation of the poor and marginalized?
I disagree with your premise. I can certainly agree that some "poor and marginalized" have received some relief from their conditions, but (again your failure to define "saved" is a huge problem here) through The Church, but can't agree that this temporary respite equals salvation in any meaningful sense.
" I think it's clear, though, that an imperfect humanity in an imperfect world WILL always have poor and marginalized folks."
This kind of begs the question. Why is humanity and the world imperfect? Why is YHWH unable to overcome or work around the imperfections in humanity and the world.
Would you agree, given the DATA, that YHWH has used the tremendous wealth, innovation, and technology driven by free/capitalist societies to tremendously drive down poverty over the last 50-75 years?
"Which is all the more reason why we should heed Jesus' Good news for the poor and marginalized."
What "good news" is that exactly? That some of the "poor and marginalized" might get some form of temporary and material "salvation" at some point? I guess the "poor and marginalized" who are luck enough to live in places where the Christians are killed or banned, are just SOL under your construct.
"And yet, we see that God has never done that personally."
And yet, this is quite the unproven and unprovable claim to be made as if it is simply True. That you personally didn't "see" something, or that you personally can't/won't/don't "see" to the point of convincing you isn't an objective measure.
"Rather, God has taught we HUMANS to do that."
Where do we find this teaching? Why would it be considered authoritative?
"And God has been clear and unequivocal on that point, throughout the biblical witness, if that means something to us."
Unequivocal on what point?
"And clearly, I think it means a lot to you. Am I right?"
I absolutely think that we as Christians are called to sacrificially take up our cross and follow Jesus, part of which is doing "good works" in response to our salvation. I'm not sure that I agree with your construct that my doing "good works" as the result of my salvation, is what saves anyone else. (Again, your unwillingness to define save/salvation is becoming a problem)
Yes, I do think that the God who created everything is capable of providing help directly to those who need it. I would not attempt to suggest that YHWH's ability to provide help is limited to "the poor".
I do see one thread of the "biblical witness" that does speak of giving help to the materially poor, yet I do not see that as the only thread throughout the "biblical witness". I certainly don't see the "biblical witness" equating salvation with providing some degree of temporary help to some of the "poor".
Interesting. So, can you give me one single example of someone who has been "saved" from every single instance of "Oppression, cruelty, harm, hate, destruction, murder, rape..."?
"My answer would be Sin, I guess, but sin, rightly understood"
So why not just say "Sin"? What is the difference between "Sin" and "sin"? You seem to be claiming that you "rightly" understand "sin" (or "Sin"), that is quite the claim. Unproven, but quite the claim nonetheless.
"When we accept Grace. When we welcome, when we join in dinners together, when we forgive, when we love... these ACTIONS come when and as we accept grace."
Interesting theory of "salvation". I appreciate your honesty and transparency in acknowledging that "salvation begins" only when we act. That the only way for us to "BEGIN" salvation is to act in our own power and will.
"Into a beloved community, the realm of God where Love, Grace, Justice and Forgiveness lives. Heaven, if you will. But heaven, rightly understood."
The usual buzzwords, talking points, and undefined bibley sounding words. Again, the notion that you "rightly" understand "heaven".
"I didn't use the word Process, you did."
I did. I used the term "process" because of your claim that salvation begins. Usually the word "BEGIN" denotes the first step in something, and one word to describe the subsequent steps is "process". I simply took your insistence that salvation does in fact "BEGIN" and followed that to it's logical conclusion.
Again with the impetus for salvation being our actions.
FWIW, many people acknowledge that Salvation is something that happens once, yet is also a continuing process. The most common terms I've heard used to describe this are "Justification", "Sanctification", and "Glorification".
Again, what begins the process of salvation, according to what you have said repeatedly is us (as imperfect humans) choosing to engage in the action of accepting YHWH's grace.
Clearly there are many things in which you are no an expert. Yet my "theory" does not require even the slightest degree of expertise to respond to.
IF, Jesus was the second person of the Godhead, fully human and fully divine possessing all of the eternal attributes of YHWH (Who claimed to be "I AM", "The Way", "The Truth" and "The Life") why would He lie to or mislead His closest followers?
If it was, as you theorize, a "vision"or "hallucination", and was an "experience" only for Jesus, then what possible benefit would their be for Him to recount it at all?
Why in the world would you think that I would do research to support your hunch?
I get it, your preconceptions and prejudices drive you to dismiss any and every instance of anything miraculous, supernatural, or metaphysical as impossible. You are welcome to your hunch, but to pretend as if the "biblical witness" and Jesus' won ministry was not filled with the supernatural seems obtuse at best.
I know, I know, you'll come up with some excuse or rationalization to justify your preconception, and that's fine. Just don't waste my time with it.
Answering your questions...
why would He lie to or mislead His closest followers?
I personally don't view that to be a "lie" or instance of misleading anyone. I consider such judgments to be imposing modern sensibilities upon ancient people's.
For instance, the universe was not created in six days. Was God lying or misleading people to inspire ancient humans to write it that way?
People spoke and told stories in the manners and genres of the time. No lies in that, seems to me.
Craig...
then what possible benefit would their be for Him to recount it at all?
Because the lessons learned... We shall not live by bread alone... don't tempt God... etc
...Are valuable lessons to learn, whatever their source. Wouldn't you agree?
Craig...
Why in the world would you think that I would do research to support your hunch?
For the sake of information and truth? For the sake of better understanding the context of the times?
Seems reasonable enough to want me to research further.
Truth for truth's sake, Mr Craig.
"I personally don't view that to be a "lie" or instance of misleading anyone."
That's a great rationalization. It's not based on anything objective, but whatever.
"For instance, the universe was not created in six days."
Prove this claim objectively, and definitively. (You don't have to waste your time trying to do so, as we both know that you can't. Yet you make this claim of fact, knowing that you can't prove it.)
"Was God lying or misleading people to inspire ancient humans to write it that way?"
As this question is based on an unproven assumption, the question itself has no validity.
."..Are valuable lessons to learn, whatever their source. Wouldn't you agree?"
No. Especially considering that their "source" was the Hebrew Scriptures.
"For the sake of information and truth?"
Again, why would you think that I would do your research for you. You made the claim/hunch, it's on you.
"For the sake of better understanding the context of the times?"
The problem with this "question" is that it assumes that Jesus was only a person "of the times". That Jesus was merely one more Jewish guy who lived in the early first century. That there was nothing unique or special about Him.
Given your insistence on the parts of Luke which refer to what Mary, Zechariah, and John said, would you then discount the supernatural elements of the account? That an angel appeared to Mary, Joseph, and Elizabeth? That John "leaped in his mother's womb" when Mary came near? That Zechariah was struck mute until the birth of John? That both John and Jesus name's were the result of angelic instruction? That Mary was a virgin? Heavenly Host bringing the news of Jesus' birth to the shepherds?
I'm interested in how you "rightly understand" the first few chapters of Luke in a way that preserves the words of Mary and Zechariah as woodenly literal, yet doesn't treat the supernatural elements in the same way.
Weird how only "the poor and marginalized" never ignored mercy while making sacrifices! What total angels "the poor and marginalized" were in those days.
But it seems equally weird to me for Christ to proclaim he came to call not the righteous but the sinners, but still brought the Good News to the entirely angelic and righteous "poor and marginalized". Seems rather contradictory to me...incongruous and inconsistent.
"I disagree with that conclusion. I think that God has ALWAYS been active in the lives and concerns of the poor and oppressed."
He certainly was in Isaiah 58. Of course, there's no mention there that the poor and oppressed never oppressed anyone at any time, so...
"Which is all the more reason why we should heed Jesus' Good news for the poor and marginalized."
What in the wide, wide world of sports is this supposed to mean, especially never hearing Dan's suspicion of what the "Good News" is??? As I more than merely suggested, Christ's reading of Isaiah 61 was to announce to all that He was indeed the Messiah. The "Good News" was "The Messiah is here and He is ME!" He didn't come to save the poor and marginalized. He came to save sinners, be they poor, marginalized or rolling in bucks. He came to die for sinners so that they might not perish but have everlasting life.
I find it hard to believe that if Jesus was only experiencing a vision in the desert that He wouldn't relate the experience to His Apostles as such.
"For instance, the universe was not created in six days."
This is an unsupported truth claim which would result in Dan deleting us if we were to express the opposite in such a matter-of-fact manner.
"For the sake of better understanding the context of the times?"
Dan has not shown a "better" understanding of the times, but only that he has no problem dictating what those times were like in such a way as to promote his preferred invention.
Craig...
"would you then discount the supernatural elements of the account? That an angel appeared to Mary, Joseph, and Elizabeth? That John "leaped in his mother's womb" when Mary came near? That Zechariah was struck mute until the birth of John? That both John and Jesus name's were the result of angelic instruction? That Mary was a virgin? Heavenly Host bringing the news of Jesus' birth to the shepherds?"
I'll answer these as a batch because they're all the same answer...
I don't discount anything. I merely note the simple reality that we can't objectively prove any exta-worldly entities were involved. To me, that part of the story is largely irrelevant. The point isn't who brought the news, the point is not Mary's virginal status or Zechariahs deafness.
The point is that Mary, an oppressed and powerless child was having a baby that she believed was of God and would deliver the poor and oppressed. That Zechariah had a similar message. That Isaiah, John and Jesus ALL had a similar message: Good news for the poor and marginalized.
Everything else is just estimations of how many angels can dance on the head of a pen.
That's how it is for many of us, anyway. We're not so concerned about "signs and wonders," as Jesus himself noted.
Craig...
"That's a great rationalization. It's not based on anything objective, but whatever."
Well, that's fitting though, right? I mean the suggestion that if Jesus passed on a story that came from a vision, that would be misleading or a lie is, itself, not based on anything objective, right? Here we are talking about unproven, unprovable ideas, right?
I almost forgot:
"Truth for truth's sake..."
Well, "Mr. Craig"! This is coming from a guy who pretends there's Scriptural evidence to support the fiction that God would bless SSMs, and that it is rational and "pro-woman" to defend, support, tolerate, champion "abortion rights".
Yeah. For truth's sake!
Dan:
"For instance, the universe was not created in six days."
Craig...
Prove this claim objectively, and definitively.
To be clear, what I'm addressing is the theory that the universe, the earth and everything else was created in six days as the biblical texts literally says (if one is inclined to take this creation story literally). And it just wasn't. For proof, I offer all the various scientific fields that touch on these topics.
Should I cite the various bits of data?
I mean, that it took millions of years to form the grand canyon itself precludes it being created in six days. Are you theorizing that the earth and universe WERE created in six days? About 6,000 years ago?
Or are you just doubting that it's been proven? You'll need to clarify what you want proven, please.
Thanks.
Answering more questions. I had said:
"My answer would be Sin, I guess, but sin, rightly understood"
Craig asked:
So why not just say "Sin"?
Because the term, Sin, has a problematic history, including in conservative evangelical history.
What is the difference between "Sin" and "sin"?
As we have discussed over the years, Sin, in the Bible, simply means "missing the mark..." as in "He was shooting for the bulls eye, but it went off to the right..." That word, itself, in how it was used in that time in the Bible, was more in fitting with the notion of how we can observe people in the real world being imperfect. We might hope to be patient with our kids or aging parents, but sometimes, we snap at them or are less-than-gracious/patient. That's not an atrocity, it's just human frailty. THAT, we can observe in humanity. We're not generally (far and away, not generally) going around raping and murdering and deliberately oppressing. We're being imperfect and sometimes lacking in grace and love.
THAT biblical notion of sin is far and away different than the medieval notion of being "totally depraved" and literally having "NO good within humans." That Calvinist theory of "sin" is a different thing, altogether, than the mere imperfection of humanity as seen in the biblical word, Sin.
THAT is why I make the distinction.
You seem to be claiming that you "rightly" understand "sin" (or "Sin"), that is quite the claim. Unproven, but quite the claim nonetheless.
A. I'm rightly understanding the definition, as I'm literally just citing the definition of the biblical term.
What HASN'T been objectively proven is the theory that
B. humans are "born with" a "sin nature," or
C. that we are "totally depraved" as a whole of humanity, or
D. that we're all instinctively "at war with God and goodness..."
Am I mistaken on any of that?
Thanks for asking, glad to clarify.
I said:
"Do you agree that, in THAT sense, God has done a tremendous amount of salvation of the poor and marginalized?
Craig replied:
I disagree with your premise.
To be clear: Do you disagree with the premise that those who've followed God's teaching to be allies with and for and alongside the poor HAVE done a great deal of good for the poor, sometimes literally saving lives? That would seem to me to be an odd thing to disagree with. Help me understand.
Craig:
I can certainly agree that some "poor and marginalized" have received some relief from their conditions, but... through The Church...,
So, you DO agree that many have had their lives saved and improved by people acting on God's teachings of helping the poor and oppressed. Then what premise are you not agreeing with, because that was the premise I offered?
Also, many people, including those NOT associated with "the Church" in any formal manner, have helped and saved the poor and marginalized. Are they NOT following God's teachings, as well, even if they're not claiming those teachings? If that's your theory, how so?
As Paul notes in Romans 2:
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but
it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Craig:
but can't agree that this temporary respite equals salvation in any meaningful se
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that poor and oppressed people being supported and defended does not equal salvation in any serious way? I think they'd beg to differ. When the mother whose child is dying from poverty has healthcare and food provided, that is LITERAL good news from them. They are literally being saved from that immediate danger of death, but also, they are being welcomed into a world of grace, and ideally, a community of grace, a beloved community... God's Realm, here, and now.
Are you guessing that isn't what Jesus meant by good news? If so, I'd disagree with that interpretation of Jesus and the biblical witness.
Would I be mistaken that you largely think of salvation as what happens by and by, that pie in the sky? Or do you think the salvation of grace is primarily about here and now, as I do?
More questions:
I had said:
"Which is all the more reason why we should heed Jesus' Good news for the poor and marginalized."
Craig:
What "good news" is that exactly?
That God is on the side of the poor and oppressed and wants God's people to be a beloved community of love, grace and justice, where the poor and excluded are welcomed and supported and are allied with.
Or, as Jesus put it: He came to bring good news to the poor, freedom for the captive, healing for the sick, the day of Jubilee where the poor and oppressed are restored. I think YOU think that this is somehow intended to be metaphorical, whereas I take Jesus (Mary, Zechariah, John the Baptist, Paul, James, the Prophets, etc) fairly literally.
Good news for the poor means help with jobs, with food, with self-determination, with housing. Release for the captive means just that, finding support to help those captive to drugs to find ways to break free... to find ways to work for justice for those in prison (AND those who may have been harmed by those in prison) and find better ways to liberty and welcome into the community. Healing for the sick means just that - health care that's affordable, policies that help promote health, poorer neighborhoods that aren't oppressed by polluting factories, dirty air or water. Etc. I don't think Jesus is speaking metaphorically here.
Do you?
That some of the "poor and marginalized" might get some form of temporary and material "salvation" at some point?
That, as God's people embrace this way of grace, welcome and inclusion, that fewer and fewer are poor and marginalized, an ongoing effort at increasing salvation through faithfulness to this way of grace. But again, I'm taking Jesus fairly literally here - AND the faithful witness throughout the Bible, as well - and see NO reason to think he is/they are speaking metaphorically.
Yes. I want the definitive study which proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that your religion of science is more reliable than Scripture in relating the origins of all things. Not long ago, I posted the title to a series of documentaries wherein scientists and researchers from a variety of fields explain how available data indicates a very young earth, and why, based on what is known and accepted as true about elements of their fields argues strongly against a "billions of years" position. It has also been said that until they needed Darwin's theory of evolution to be accepted, a old universe had to be accepted as well. That is, the idea of a young earth was never disputed until humanists decided it had to be to serve their unproven theories and hypotheses.
As an example, one of the claims discussed in the series was the formation of the Grand Canyon. The host stands in a canyon and speaks of how it once looked, covered with a forest, and how it is said the Grand Canyon...and other formations like it...was the result of millions of years of erosion, carving out the land.
But the canyon in which he was standing wasn't the Grand Canyon, but it looked similar though obviously smaller. Turns out where he was standing was on land which was devastated by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980. Where he was standing formed in a very brief period of time. The eruption lasted for nine hours, and the "Little Grand Canyon", where he stood, was formed as a result, as were others like Loowit and Step Canyon.
I've no doubt that after mentioning the series, Dan made no effort to find and view them, because of his firm conviction in the truth and wisdom of his religion of science.
A billions of years universe has most definitely NOT been proven.
I believe Dan has a perverse fear of admitting a belief in the miraculous, or more likely a fear of how others would treat him if they knew he believed the miracles presented in Scripture actually happened as described. Talking snakes and donkeys? What rube would believe that?? Turning a woman into a pillar of salt?? Nonsense!!
But Dan is known for picking and choosing that which is worthy of his belief and rejects all else, then says he reveres Scripture. To Dan, it's not a "rulings" book, but a book of lies which says some things he likes.
"As we have discussed over the years, Sin, in the Bible, simply means "missing the mark...""
As we've rightly concluded in that time is that your infatuation with this definition serves to minimize the grave seriousness of sin so as to allow you to continue pretending the conscious and willful rejection of God's prohibitions against indulging in certain behaviors can be excused as "mistakes" of "imperfect" people, and therefore God shouldn't get all bent out of shape when Judgement Time comes...except as regards those behaviors over which Dan gets all bent out of shape. "Oops!," exclaimed Adolf. "It seems I missed the mark!"
"That's not an atrocity, it's just human frailty. THAT, we can observe in humanity. We're not generally (far and away, not generally) going around raping and murdering and deliberately oppressing. We're being imperfect and sometimes lacking in grace and love."
And here we see Dan doing the actual perverting of what sin is. He asserts that it's original meaning and usage is as he needs it to be so as to suggest that sins he personally regards as minor are not and should not be regarded by God too severely...never mind God's own position on what constitutes sin. Recall the Scriptural teaching regarding breaking one of the Laws is to break them all and we can see that God doesn't minimize any disobedience as tolerable. But thank Dan God has someone to show Him the way!
Dan seems to think the "Calvinist" teaching of "total depravity" means a leering, snorting, psychotic evil, when it's really no more than "all have fallen short of the Glory of God" or "None is righteous, not, not one..."
"Am I mistaken on any of that?"
Totally. But no amount of Scripture, no number of verses or passages which teach these things are good enough for a totally depraved and perverted Dan to accept if he chooses not to without Scriptural support....which he doesn't.
It's not like "missing the mark" set by YHWH is a big deal, is it? Why should we get all worked up over "simply missing the mark"?
Contradictory, incongruous, and inconsistent, barely scratch the surface. It all starts with ignoring the meaning of Jesus' name and goes from there.
I agree that for someone who referred to Himself as "The Truth" and who claimed that He was exempt from the Jewish law requiring multiple witnesses to attest to something, would neglect that important detail.
Strangely enough, Dan seem skeptical about this instance of "visions" or "hallucinations" but says nothing about the presumed "visions" or "hallucinations" experienced by Mary, Elizabeth, Joseph, Zechariah, the shepherds, or any one of the many "visions" and "hallucinations" recorded in Scripture.
As I've noted elsewhere, I am not inextricably bound to a 6 day creation, yet I can acknowledge that a God who created all that exists certainly has the ability to create in any manner He desires. If one argued that He did a Thanos snap and everything was instantly brought into existence, I have no problem accepting that as a possibility, nor do I have a major problem with the day/age folks. I rest firmly in a literal God, creating everything that exists out of nothing, and am open to liberty on the rest.
As I noted, Dan's premise is an unproven assumption based on the standards he demands of others. Likewise, Dan's unproven claims to have a "better understanding" of anything should be with extreme skepticism.
How convenient. To act as if the miraculous is irrelevant and of no concern when speaking of Jesus. I guess the whole "healing", making the blind "see", helping the "lame" walk, "water" into "wine", "walking on water" thing is simply irrelevant to the story of Jesus.
Strangely enough, Jesus seemed pretty clear that His miracles were integral to validating His status as God.
Given this, it seems rather pointless to pray to a god who doesn't/can't directly intervene.
What an excellent excuse, well done. The issue in question is why would someone who claimed to be "The Truth", spoke of worshiping in "Spirit and Truth", "I've come to bear witness to the Truth", "You will know the Truth, andn the Truth will set you free", "God's Word is Truth" and "The Spirit will lead you to Truth" tell those who followed Him the most closely anything that wasn't True.
Especially as He could have simply pointed out that He'd experienced a "vision", as Jewish tradition was very accepting of a God who spoke through dreams and visions.
"Should I cite the various bits of data?"
If you'd like. But start with an explanation for the mathematical precision with which earth is fine tuned for life to exist. Then address the amount of matter, strong nuclear force, and cosmic expansion rate. Maybe then you could address the virtual statistical impossibility of random mutations producing even the simplest forms of life in the length of time everything is claimed to have existed. If you have time, you could explain how the vast amount of information contained in DNA got there.
The problem you have, which you regularly note, is that Science simply can't prove the claims you are making to a certainty. There are all sorts of theories, but no definitive proof.
"I mean, that it took millions of years to form the grand canyon itself precludes it being created in six days. Are you theorizing that the earth and universe WERE created in six days? About 6,000 years ago?"
I'm not "theorizing" anything. I'm simply doing what you do and asking that you either prove your claims definitively and specifically, or rephrase your claims as more hunches.
Art,
Dan wants a Bible without the supernatural. Whether his construct of god is incapable of miracles, or just doesn't care enough to get directly involved, is irrelevant.
"Do you disagree with the premise that those who've followed God's teaching to be allies with and for and alongside the poor HAVE done a great deal of good for the poor, sometimes literally saving lives?"
No. You could have figured that out by reading my comments.
"So, you DO agree that many have had their lives saved and improved by people acting on God's teachings of helping the poor and oppressed. Then what premise are you not agreeing with, because that was the premise I offered?"
No, I was not. I was disagreeing with your premise that YHWH is limited in His ability to intervene and that the only means He has is The Church. I have to note that this makes your first question look incredibly stupid, as I literally gave you that answer had you simply read before you typed, or simply gone back and deleted the stupid bits.
"Also, many people, including those NOT associated with "the Church" in any formal manner, have helped and saved the poor and marginalized. Are they NOT following God's teachings, as well, even if they're not claiming those teachings?"
1. I am using "The Church" to refer to all who have ever followed YHWH.
2. If a Satanist, atheist, or pagan, happens to engage in an action that coincidentally aligns with YHWH's teachings, (especially if they are unaware of YHWH's teachings), in what sense can they follow "teachings" they are unaware of or reject?
"If that's your theory, how so?"
How what? Are you now suggesting that YHWH's "teachings" are somehow universal rules to be followed?
It's also amusing when you proof text Paul to support your hunches, because you can't find any example of Jesus saying what you want.
However, Paul is making the case (throughout Romans at a minimum) that YHWH has provide ample evidence of His existence through Creation, and conscience (for lack of a better term) to point everyone towards Himself. The other side of the coin is Paul's argument that this "general revelations" renders those that do not respond to YHWH's revelation responsible for their ultimate fate.
"I'm not sure what you mean."
I'm sorry, I've commented on this subject several times recently. I'd assumed you'd read and remembered. In short, "What good is it to gain the whole world, but lose your soul?" (a paraphrase). Jesus seems clear that mere temporal succor (or more) has less value than one's eternal soul.
"Are you saying that poor and oppressed people being supported and defended does not equal salvation in any serious way?"
No. I'm saying that temporary relief of material poverty or physical hunger, is just that. It's a temporary respite from discomfort. If you consider temporary alleviation of physical circumstances as "salvation", the I guess so. But I'm not thinking that temporary "salvation" is that big of a deal, when Jesus seemed clear that physical condition was less important than one's soul.
"I think they'd beg to differ."
Again, when you start with "I think", I automatically dismiss anything that follows. When you presume to speak for others, then you just look like a privileged WL who thinks he's dispensing salvation.
"When the mother whose child is dying from poverty has healthcare and food provided, that is LITERAL good news from them."
Yes it is, until it runs out. It might be "good news", but it's not necessarily permanent "salvation".
"They are literally being saved from that immediate danger of death,"
Thanks for acknowledging that you version of "salvation" is temporary and dependent on WLs to continue to dispense this "salvation".
"but also, they are being welcomed into a world of grace, and ideally, a community of grace, a beloved community... God's Realm, here, and now."
Gobbldygook, gibberish, and a random collection of buzzwords. Because an Atheist working for the Red Cross is all about expanding God's Kingdom.
"Are you guessing that isn't what Jesus meant by good news?"
No. I'm reading the entire NT and realizing that He wasn't limiting "salvation" to merely food and water. Nor did He engage in providing food, water, or medical care in any sort of comprehensive way.
" If so, I'd disagree with that interpretation of Jesus and the biblical witness."
I couldn't care less.
"Would I be mistaken that you largely think of salvation as what happens by and by, that pie in the sky?"
Yes.
"Or do you think the salvation of grace is primarily about here and now, as I do?"
No.
"That God is on the side of the poor and oppressed and wants God's people to be a beloved community of love, grace and justice, where the poor and excluded are welcomed and supported and are allied with."
That is pretty much what I thought you'd say. A limited gospel focused primarily/exclusively to things that neither Jesus or the Early Church engaged in on a large scale.
"Or, as Jesus put it: He came to bring good news to the poor, freedom for the captive, healing for the sick, the day of Jubilee where the poor and oppressed are restored. I think YOU think that this is somehow intended to be metaphorical, whereas I take Jesus (Mary, Zechariah, John the Baptist, Paul, James, the Prophets, etc) fairly literally."
Actually Jesus was quoting Isiah. Strangely enough, none of those things happened on anything but a few individuals during Jesus' earthly ministry.
Again, literally isn't a scale. Clearly you pick and choose which parts of what is recorded about those people to "take fairly literally".
"I don't think Jesus is speaking metaphorically here."
Again, when "think" is present, I ignore what follows.
"Do you?"
Do I agree with your hunch, no.
"We find this teaching ALL over. We find it biblically, as you know, but not ONLY in the Bible. As Paul and others noted, this kind of expectation of decency, kindness and ally-ship is written upon the very hearts of a humanity created in the image of a perfectly loving and just God."
I'll note that you seem to have simply asserted that a few lines in the Bible must be followed as Dan interprets them. Then you appeal to some sort of supernatural "writing" and other unprofitable things.
"...but because it's obviously true. It rings true in our hearts and minds of people created in the image of a loving God and still have that of God within them."
Well, as long as you assert this magical incantation, it must be True. Yet, as you seem to deny the universal effects of Sin or the existence of The Satan, you lack a coherent explanation for why so many ignore this "obvious truth". Given the ample evil in the world, I'd have to question how "obvious" this truth is.
"And this teaching is authoritative, again, NOT because there is a line in the Bible,"
Yet you continuously point only to some lines in the Bible, taken out of context as your "proof".
"but because all of humanity recognizes its innate righteousness."
This is quite a claim. Unproven, as usual. Contradicted by what we see around us. But if you say so.
I guess you're just making excuses for the reality of Sin and it's effects on humanity. FYI, I'd asked earlier if you could be clearer about what type of "love" you are referring to, and I don't recall you providing that information. If you could point me to where you've done so, that would be great.
"Where do we find this notion? Where do we NOT find it?! That's the better question."
We do not find it in the crowds that chant "Death to...", or in people who mutilate their children, or who rape and kidnap innocent people or use innocents as human shields. We do not find it in a "religion" that focuses on sex, violence, oppression, slavery, and mutilation. Nor in the religious leaders the encourage those things. There are plenty of places where we don't find your magical heart writings.
I'm saying that if you choose to show disrespect, ignore my requests, or have to ask if you've done so, that your comment will be aborted.
It's strange that you make these claims about your love and piety, revel in your good works, yet can't show a minimal amount of respect.
I do thank you for showing your True colors, and demonstrating that your alleged commitment to behave differently was temporary at best.
Where have I failed to show respect? I've been quite politely engaging in good faith conversations, answering your questions and trying to understand yours, asking questions politely. I beg your pardon if I have somehow been disrespectful., I truly don't know where.
Is it when I said, "when "think" is present, I ignore what follows."
Oh wait. That was you engaging in what I guess you consider polite discourse?
"Are you guessing that isn't what Jesus meant by good news?"
Absolutely no question or doubt that Jesus didn't mean that. But you do provide more evidence that to you, "Christian" is just another word for "socialist".
The Dan quotes in this comment of yours are even more evidence that "Christian" is just a word to Dan, and that Scripture is worthless until he needs it to push his socialist/marxist narrative. A teaching is authoritative but NOT because it's found in the Bible? What teaching would that be? A teaching of Dan? A teaching of the woman who thinks she's a pastor at Jeff St? A teaching of Marx? What moral teaching is authoritative by not being found in Scripture? How can it be more so if NOT found in Scripture? The more Dan speaks, the more he indicts himself as a fraud.
Who are you to put behavioral expectations on Dan? If God has no authority to do so, where do you get off? (end of sarcasm)
Craig...
"you make these claims about your love and piety, revel in your good works..."
About me, specifically? Where?
Or merely that I note the reality that I live surrounded by imperfect but genuinely good people as observably demonstrated by their good acts? I mean, you will know people by their fruits/actions. Do you think those are some of the biblical teachings that should NOT be taken literally?
If so, I still wonder what your collective rubric is for which lines in the Bible to take literally and not.
It's not so much that I put expectations on Dan as I shine the light on the fact that he won't live up the the demands he makes of others.
Although, I have of late, required him to respect our request for respect and have followed through on the consequences when he chooses not to. But those consequences are 100% his responsibility at this point.
So many questions, so few answers. Although Dan is answering more questions than usual, for which I commend him.
I am going to try very hard not to go against how I said I would treat you, but this is making it difficult.
We have repeatedly asked, starting of politely, nicely, and respectfully, for you to stop the condescending paternalistic garbage. Due you your intransigence, I was forced to begin aborting your comments for refusing to show that small bit of respect. Since than, you've moved to more passive aggressive tactics by trying to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, when you know that none of it is acceptable. Now, you pull this bullshit.
If you "don't know" then it's you choosing ignorance or intransigence.
Yes, I've noted for quite some time that when you start a sentence with "I think..." I automatically discount anything that follows, as I simply don't care about what you "think" as opposed to what you can prove. I've told you this politely and respectfully many times before. If you choose to continue to pretend like "I think..." somehow means anything, that's on you. Yes, I do consider repeating what I've previously said, in a polite, respectful manner to be polite.
Politeness doesn't require that I indulge you without limit.
Do you not read what you write? Do you not regularly and repeatedly talk about the multitude of "good works" you do, and the multitude of "good works" your church does?
I absolutely acknowledge that one of the results of our salvation is to engage in actions to help others and further the Kingdom of YHWH. Yet, I fail to see where Jesus teaches us to brag or brag about how "good" we are by how many "good works" we do. Jesus talks about humility, and doing "good" in secret, not about publicly blowing one's own horn.
I had this conversation this morning about how uncomfortable I get when talking about "good works" I've been involved in. I firmly believe that it's not about me, and therefor I'm content to serve without publicity. I've talked a little about what I've done here because I felt like I needed to dispel your prejudices about "conservatives" not doing "good works". If I was so inclined I am very confident that I and my churches would very favorably compare to yours. However, I'm not so inclined and am slightly uncomfortable with what I've said.
That's strange, as I've been very clear about mine for years and repeated it multiple times, while waiting for your magical formula for doing so.
To repeat. I strive to take every passage literally and at face value, in the style that it is written in. For example I take metaphor as literal metaphor, and look for the Truth that the metaphor is trying to communicate.
Is it THIS?
"Respectfully submitted, with more opinions respectfully submitted later, if that's okay."
Craig:
I can't decide if this is obsequious, snarky, or disrespectful
Is it because I noted the reality that I was respectfully submitting an opinion for consideration? Why would you presume it's anything but just what I said?
I TRULY am trying to be polite with you. I'm striving to take an even-toned, calm and snark-free conversation with you and simply engaging in offering my opinions, answering your questions and asking you questions and responding. No snark intended. Have I let a "No snark intended, good man..." slip out accidentally? That is just the way I talk and have talked for years. I've been trying to avoid it but if one time I slipped and accidentally referred to you as a "good man," it was a slip, and obviously no disrespect intended.
If that's what it is, I can't tell you have confounding that you find it problematic or disrespectful if I accidentally call you "good man."
I'm a Southern, Baptist boy, bred and raised. That's how we talk.
Craig:
If I was so inclined I am very confident that I and my churches would very favorably compare to yours. However, I'm not so inclined and am slightly uncomfortable with what I've said.
Well, good, I should hope so. Churches SHOULD be out making a positive impact in the world and the ones who don't SHOULD be the exception, not the rule.
Craig, I think you're offering your rubric here, is that right?
I strive to take every passage literally
and at face value,
in the style that it is written in.
For example I take metaphor as literal metaphor,
and look for the Truth that the metaphor is trying to communicate.
Well, good, that's not far from mine. Although I don't strive to take EVERY passage literally, as we know there is a bunch of non-literal words in there, right? Rather,
"I start by striving to take every passage seriously and
for what it has to say about God and love and
part of that process is deciding
"Is this a passage that's using metaphor?
Speaking literally?
Talking about historic facts? Myth? Parable?"
Does that seem reasonable and something you do, as well?
But setting that aside, so, we both have rubrics.
We both look to the Truths being taught,
strive to understand the genre
strive to take it at face value (I'd add, IF it should contextually be taken at face value), etc
That is, we both have a similar rubric.
And yet, we reach different conclusions. Sometimes wildly different or even opposite conclusions.
So, is it safe to say then that our rubrics (and the reasoning that you and the reasoning that I) apply to understand the text using our rubrics are not infallible? That you and I can both be mistaken, EVEN WITH a rubric?
I see the demand for a "rubric" to be another deflective ploy to avoid explaining how Scripture actually provides rationalization for the willful rejection of clearly expressed behavioral prohibitions, as well as to justify rejecting scholarly explanations for why the text is expressing one thing while Dan chooses to assert it's expressing something else. And it's another ever changing basis Dan imposes...fluid according to his needs...and as you say, he provides little, if anything, in the way of providing a "rubric" of his own.
Take his "miss the mark" argument regarding the meaning of sin. He focuses on "missing marks" when the term is applied to disobedience and rebellion against God, not mere "mistakes" or "misunderstandings" about what is actually clear and unambiguous. I would suspect that the original word with the meaning of "missing the mark" was used as it was the word they had which most closely reflected the intentional/unintentional disobedience referenced.
But no matter. The way in which the word is used is clearly understood by honest people to be "disobedience/rebellion" whether intentional (more often than not) or unintentional. Dan's focus on "missing the mark" ignores the mark and assumes that imperfect targeting is no big deal to the One who erected the mark we're to hit.
Thus again, it would be accurate to say that Dan's "rubric" is ambiguity.
"Craig, I think you're offering your rubric here, is that right?"
I wouldn't call it a "rubric", but close enough. I have repeated this guideline once again, as you can't seem to remember that I've provided this multiple times before.
"...as we know there is a bunch of non-literal words in there, right?"
Then clearly you just copy pasted what I wrote and didn't pay ant attention. No, you are not right.
"0oes that seem reasonable and something you do, as well?"
Very little about your haphazard attempts to parse scripture seem reasonable to me.
Yes, we can both be mistaken, I've never even hinted otherwise. I've never announced that you hunch was "rightly understanding" Scripture. I've never claimed that my hunch was "reality".
The problem is not that we come to different conclusions, it's that you so often come to a conclusions that is diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the text, and you often pick random words of phrases out of a larger passage to take either woodenly literally or totally figuratively. Sometimes you'll do so in the same sentence.
I see the demand for a "rubric" to simply be one more tactic to stall and divert, while also highlighting Dan's lack of a "rubric". Even the one he finally offered lack detail and specifics, and seems littered with questions.
This is an instance where Dan insists on a wooden literal interpretation of the term and ignores factors like intent, motivation. He assumes that these misses are simply mistakes, with no DATA to prove his preconception.
Dan thrives in ambiguity and self reference.
"Is it THIS?"
I'm not sure what your are referencing. If it's your lack or respect and continued ignoring of my request, then no. Everything that is close to demonstrating your choice not to respect my request has been aborted.
"Is it because I noted the reality that I was respectfully submitting an opinion for consideration? Why would you presume it's anything but just what I said?"
Because I don't trust or believe you. Because your new attitude sounds like malicious compliance with a bit of snark added.
I don't care how you "talk", you've been asked to respect one simple request and you have repeatedly failed to do so. My blog, my rules. If you can't do as you're asked, then the comment abortions are your fault. Further I don't believe that you do much accidentally, and I simply don't care. You know the rules, you violate them at your peril.
That you waste time with stupid crap like this, instead of just going along with the request, doesn't help.
"What's wrong with that?"
For you, clearly nothing. You obviously see no problem bragging and touting all of the "good works" you do.
"Well, again, this is specific to THIS/THESE conversations."
I don't care what your excuse for bragging is.
"Do you think God wants us to think lowly of ourselves, we who are created in God's image, born to do good works?"
No, I think that YHWH wants us to have the most accurate possible view of our relative position relative to Him. I tend to shy away from the kind of bragging I see from you as I don't see the value in it. Am/is my church "better" than yours because we spend literally millions of dollars every year on "missions"? I don't think so, and I don't see the value in this kind of competitive comparison. Y'all you whatever it is you do, and don't brag about it. It's not that hard.
Whoops, Dan just "accidentally" chose to take a risk in a comment, and it ended up aborted.
Post a Comment