https://x.com/bskimike22802/status/2031518440914075878?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"A Science Teacher's Field Guide to Spotting a False Prophet in Campaign Clothing-Step in James Talarico
There is an old theological warning so obvious that most people have forgotten it matters. Jesus did not say, "Beware of obvious wolves." He said, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves" (Matthew 7:15, LSB). The entire point of the warning is the DISGUISE. If the wolf just walked in as a wolf, you would not need the warning.
I am not in the habit of calling politicians false prophets. Politicians lie, distort, and spin. That is almost a job requirement at this point. But when a politician wraps himself in scripture, claims the mantle of Christian faith as a campaign strategy, and then systematically inverts every foundational teaching of that faith while demanding you APPLAUD him for his Christianity — that crosses into territory the Apostle Peter described in 2 Peter 2:1: "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies."
Meet James Talarico. The Texas Democratic candidate for United States Senate. The man who just defeated Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. The media's new exhibit A for "authentic Christian in politics." A Presbyterian seminarian, they keep telling us — as though that credential alone settles the matter.
It does not settle the matter. It actually makes it worse.
1 — WHAT A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones spent years dissecting Matthew 7:15-20 in his landmark series on the Sermon on the Mount. His conclusion is worth sitting with: the false prophet is not the person who says obviously wrong things. If he said obviously wrong things, detection would be trivial. No, the false prophet is subtle. He USES the right vocabulary. He mentions God, Jesus, the cross. He speaks of love, community, inclusion. The undiscerning listener nods along because everything SOUNDS like Christianity...right up until you notice what he is not saying and what he is actively contradicting.
The false prophet, Lloyd-Jones observed, does not like to discuss the holiness of God. He does not like to dwell on sin. He absolutely avoids the final judgment. He preaches a Christianity that never makes anyone uncomfortable, never confronts anyone with hard truths, and conveniently aligns with whatever the progressive consensus happens to be that week. And then, critically, he uses Jesus as the endorsement stamp for that agenda.
That is Talarico to a tee.
2 — "GOD IS NON-BINARY" — A SEMINARY STUDENT SAID THIS
Let us start where Talarico himself chose to start — on the floor of the Texas House, no less. He stood before his colleagues and announced, with apparent confidence, that the first two lines of Genesis use different Hebrew words for God: one masculine, one feminine. His conclusion? "God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between. God is non-binary."
I want to give this the full weight of academic scrutiny it deserves from a science teacher who actually assigns primary source reading.
The words Talarico referenced are Elohim (the Hebrew noun for the divine, grammatically plural, used for the God of Israel throughout the Old Testament) and ruach (spirit — yes, a grammatically feminine noun in Hebrew). What Talarico somehow neglected to mention is that grammatical gender in Hebrew, just like in Spanish or French, does not describe biological or ontological gender. The word for "war" in Hebrew is grammatically feminine. Nobody concludes war is a woman. The word for the Holy Spirit (ruach ha-Kodesh) is grammatically feminine in Hebrew, neuter in Greek, and masculine in Latin. The Holy Spirit is still the Holy Spirit across all three languages.
Talarico went to seminary. He studied Hebrew. He knows this. He is counting on his audience NOT knowing it.
Genesis 1:27 — the very chapter he cited — states with absolute clarity: "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." The binary is right there in the text he is supposedly interpreting. The distinction between male and female is presented not as a social construct but as the definitive creative act of God.
Genesis 2:21-24 continues the thought with the creation of woman from man and the institution of marriage between them. These are not ambiguous passages requiring advanced seminarian decoding. They are foundational.
What Talarico did with the Hebrew gendered nouns is the exegetical equivalent of concluding that because we call a ship "she," naval engineers are confused about the gender binary. The wheel is spinning but the hamster has clearly relocated.
3 — GALATIANS 3:28 AND THE ART OF YANKING VERSES FROM CONTEXT
Talarico also went to Galatians 3:28 — "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" — and summarized it as "pretty woke for the first century."
Let us do what a science teacher does and read the surrounding context.
Galatians chapter 3 is Paul's argument that justification — being made right before God — comes through faith in Christ alone, not through ethnic heritage, legal status, or gender. Paul is making the point that the PATHWAY TO GOD is equally available to all people regardless of those categories. He is NOT saying those categories cease to exist. He is NOT saying biology is irrelevant. He is NOT endorsing gender theory.
Paul addresses gender directly elsewhere and at length. 1 Corinthians 11:3 establishes the headship structure. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 states that woman was made from man and for man. Ephesians 5:22-25 gives husbands and wives distinct complementary roles. These passages exist in the SAME CORPUS as Galatians 3:28. A seminarian who selectively reads one verse while pretending the others do not exist is not doing theology. He is doing opposition research on the text.
The technical term for what Talarico is doing is prooftexting. Quinn's Law Number 6: facts are the enemy of liberalism. The solution, apparently, is to use the same verse over and over while the rest of the canon sits unread.
4 — THE MOST SPECTACULAR ABUSE OF THE ANNUNCIATION IN RECORDED HISTORY
This is where the sheep's clothing really comes off. In multiple interviews — Joe Rogan, Ezra Klein, Stephen Colbert — Talarico argued that the story of Mary's annunciation in Luke 1 constitutes biblical support for abortion.
His logic: the angel came to Mary and asked for her consent. Mary gave consent. Therefore, creation requires consent. Therefore, abortion is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.
I teach science. I require my students to actually read the source material. So let us read Luke 1:26-38 as written.
The angel Gabriel comes to Mary and announces that she WILL conceive and bear a son. This is not a proposal. He does not say, "Would you be open to having God's child?" He says, "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus." That is a declarative statement of what is going to happen. Mary's response — "Behold, the slave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word" — is a statement of SUBMISSION TO GOD'S WILL, not a negotiated contract giving her the right to terminate the pregnancy if she changed her mind.
To use Mary's humble submission to God as a proof text for abortion is one of the most theologically inverted readings of scripture I have encountered. It does not merely miss the point. It reverses it entirely. Mary is the model of faithful obedience. Talarico has transformed her into a spokeswoman for reproductive autonomy.
Then there is what the text ACTUALLY says about life in the womb. Luke 1:41-44 records that Elizabeth's unborn son John "leaped in her womb" when Mary (pregnant with Jesus) arrived. The Greek word used for unborn John is brephos — infant — the same word used for the newborn Jesus in Luke 2:12. The Holy Spirit moves through an unborn child to recognize the presence of the unborn Christ. The text makes no distinction in personhood between the born and the unborn.
Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Psalm 139:13-16 uses the most intimate language of divine relationship for the child being woven together in the womb. The Didache, one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, explicitly condemns abortion. Talarico has read all of this. His silence on it is not ignorance. It is selection.
5 — "ABORTION AND GAY MARRIAGE AREN'T IN THE BIBLE" — LET ME CORRECT THE RECORD
Talarico has stated repeatedly that abortion and homosexuality "aren't mentioned in the Bible" and are "two issues that Jesus never talked about." He went further in a podcast interview to say consensual same-sex relationships are "never mentioned" in scripture.
First: I just demonstrated that the biblical witness on life in the womb is extensive and explicit.
Second: the claim that homosexuality is not addressed in scripture is not a serious argument from someone who has read it. Leviticus 18:22. Leviticus 20:13. Romans 1:26-27. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. 1 Timothy 1:10. These passages are explicit, consistent, and span both Testaments. Talarico might argue for alternative interpretations — that is a legitimate theological debate. But to stand before audiences and claim the Bible says NOTHING on the subject is a factual error that a first-year seminarian would not make.
Third: the argument "Jesus never personally mentioned it" is not a hermeneutical principle any credible seminary endorses. Jesus never personally condemned child sacrifice. He never personally addressed Roman gladiatorial combat. The whole canon is scripture, not just the words printed in red ink. Paul wrote Romans under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To say "Jesus never mentioned it" while ignoring Paul is not careful biblical scholarship. It is cherry-picking with a seminary degree attached.
6 — "GOD IS NOT A NOUN. GOD IS A VERB."
Talarico stated in a recorded speech: "God is not a Presbyterian. God is not a Christian. God is not a noun at all. God is a verb. God is not a being. God is being itself."
This is not progressive Christianity. This is not even Christianity. What Talarico is describing is a version of panentheism or process theology — frameworks that have existed on the fringes of academic theological discourse for generations and have been consistently rejected by orthodox Christianity because they contradict the explicit testimony of scripture.
Exodus 3:14: "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.'" The divine name YHWH is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be" — but it describes God's SELF-EXISTENCE as a personal being, not a force or abstract process. The God of the Bible has a name. He speaks. He acts. He makes covenants. He gets angry. He forgives. He loves. Personal beings do these things. Verbs do not.
John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That Word became flesh in John 1:14. God incarnated in a specific human body at a specific point in history. A verb cannot become flesh. An abstract cosmic force does not have a resurrection. Christianity's entire historical claim rests on a God who is a PERSONAL BEING who entered His creation.
To say "God is not a being, God is being itself" is to deny the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection simultaneously. These are not peripheral doctrines. They are the load-bearing walls of the entire Christian structure. You can discard them if you want. But you cannot discard them and call the result Christianity.
7 — A HISTORY LESSON FOR THE SEMINARIAN
In his "sermon against Christian nationalism," Talarico stated that "300 years after Jesus was executed by the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official state religion of that very same empire. Constantine was the first Christian nationalist."
This is factually wrong. Not debatable. Wrong.
Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He made it a LEGAL religion. The Edict of Milan in 313 AD ended state persecution of Christians and granted religious tolerance broadly. That is importantly different from establishment. Christianity became the official state religion under Emperor Theodosius I in 380 AD, with the Edict of Thessalonica — approximately 44 years after Constantine's death.
A man studying to be a minister who is delivering sermons about church history to Texas legislators should know this. I teach this in high school. It is in every introductory church history text. This is not an obscure detail. It is a foundational date every seminary curriculum covers in the first semester.
When the foundational historical claim in your argument is incorrect, everything built on top of it collapses. But a man this media-savvy almost certainly knows the claim is wrong. Which means he is counting on his audience not knowing it.
8 — THREE FALSE PREMISES IN ONE OPENING PARAGRAPH — A PERSONAL BEST
Let me quote Talarico's "Christian nationalism is on the rise" speech verbatim, because reading it carefully is the whole assignment: "Three years ago, Christian nationalists stormed the US Capitol, killing police officers while carrying crosses and signs reading 'Jesus Saves.' Two years ago, Christian nationalists on the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states like ours to outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest. And as we speak, Christian nationalist billionaires are attempting to dismantle public education in the state of Texas and therefore dismantle democracy."
I count three distinct factual problems in a single opening paragraph. That is actually impressive in a specific way that I am not able to compliment.
FALSE CLAIM ONE: Police officers were killed by Christian nationalists on January 6.
No police officer was killed by rioters on January 6, 2021. Officer Brian Sicknick, whose death was originally reported in connection with that day, died of natural causes — specifically strokes — on January 7, 2021. The Washington, D.C., Medical Examiner officially ruled his death natural. He was not beaten, stabbed, or bludgeoned by rioters. This is documented. It is in the public record. It has been confirmed by the same investigative apparatus that prosecuted hundreds of January 6 participants.
Yet Talarico is standing on a stage — describing himself as a truth-teller, as someone who holds scripture to account — and opening with a statement that medical examiners have already disproven.
FALSE CLAIM TWO: "Christian nationalists on the US Supreme Court" overturned Roe v. Wade.
This is not a description of what happened. The Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization did not overturn Roe v. Wade because the justices were "Christian nationalists." They overturned it because the Court found — correctly, as even many liberal legal scholars have acknowledged — that Roe was constitutionally indefensible. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, not exactly a right-wing ideologue, repeatedly criticized Roe's constitutional reasoning during her lifetime, calling it a decision that "moved too fast" and lacked a proper legal foundation. The Dobbs majority did not impose Christianity on the nation. It returned the question of abortion regulation to the democratic processes of individual states — which is precisely what the Constitution contemplates when a right is not enumerated in its text. You may disagree with the outcome. But "Christian nationalists on the Supreme Court did this" is not a legal analysis. It is a political slogan wearing a robe.
FALSE CLAIM THREE: Dismantling public education = dismantling democracy.
I teach in a high-need career tech district. I actually assigned homework last Tuesday. So I want to be precise here. School choice, education savings accounts, and charter schools — whatever one thinks of the policy arguments — are not the same as "dismantling democracy." They are policy disagreements about how best to educate children. The conflation of "a policy I disagree with" and "the destruction of democracy itself" is a rhetorical technique, not an argument. It is designed to make ordinary political opposition sound like an existential threat, which is useful if you need emotional urgency but not useful if you care about accuracy.
Democracy, as even Talarico seems to understand given that he just won a primary, involves voters making decisions. Voters in Texas electing representatives who favor school choice is democracy. Labeling the outcome of that democratic process as "dismantling democracy" is the kind of sentence construction that sounds profound until you read it twice.
Three claims. Three factual problems. And all of this in the setup. Quinn's Law Number 6: facts are the enemy of liberalism. When the facts do not support the conclusion, apparently you state the false version with enough confidence that nobody checks.
A seminarian who cares about truth — who routinely invokes Jesus and honesty and authentic Christianity — should not be comfortable building his signature speech on claims that medical records, legal history, and basic definitional clarity have already dismantled.
9 — "JESUS NEVER ASKED US TO..." — A MASTERCLASS IN WHAT TO LEAVE OUT
In that same speech, Talarico offers a list. "Jesus never asked us to kill police officers. Jesus never asked us to ban books, silence teachers, or defund schools. Jesus never asked us to control women's bodies. Jesus never asked us to establish a Christian theocracy."
These statements are, technically, all true. They are also profoundly unserious as theological arguments, and here is why: I can construct the same kind of list about nearly any position while leaving out everything inconvenient.
Jesus never asked us to perform late-term abortions. Also true. Jesus never asked us to chemically castrate children in the name of gender affirmation. Also true. Jesus never asked us to make the federal government the primary vehicle for wealth redistribution. Also true. Jesus never asked men to marry men. Also true — he actually redefined marriage explicitly in Matthew 19:4-6, quoting Genesis 1 and 2 to define it as one man and one woman.
The "Jesus never explicitly said X" framework is only as useful as the things you choose to put in the X. Talarico fills it with conservative positions he opposes. The exercise is not biblical analysis. It is selective indignation dressed in theological robes.
Here is what makes this particularly interesting: Talarico simultaneously argues that Jesus never talked about abortion or gay marriage (implying silence means permission), AND that Jesus DID take positions on things he never explicitly addressed — like carbon emissions (which Talarico has claimed are un-Christian), billionaire wealth accumulation, and school choice policy. The rule appears to be: Jesus's silence condemns conservative positions and endorses progressive ones. Somehow. Every time.
And then comes the part I will credit him for, because intellectual honesty demands it: "All he asked was that we love thy neighbor — not just our Christian neighbors, not just our straight neighbors, not just our male neighbors, not just our white neighbors, not just our rich neighbors. We are called to love all of our neighbors."
He is right that Jesus commanded love of neighbor without exception. Matthew 22:39 is unambiguous. Luke 10:25-37 — the Good Samaritan — extends neighbor to include even sworn enemies. I have no quarrel with any of that.
The quarrel is that Talarico has defined "love" exclusively as political agreement with Democratic policy positions. He has defined "love of neighbor" as supporting abortion access, comprehensive gender ideology in schools, open borders, and Democratic candidates. But 1 Corinthians 13:6 defines love as something that "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth." Biblical love is not the same thing as affirmation of every preference a person holds. A physician who tells a patient the truth about a dangerous diagnosis loves that patient MORE than the physician who says only what the patient wants to hear. A parent who disciplines a child loves that child MORE than one who never says no.
If you truly love your neighbor, you tell them the truth even when it is uncomfortable. That is precisely what Talarico is NOT doing when he systematically removes everything in the biblical text that might make his target audience feel convicted.
10 — THE UNIVERSALISM PROBLEM
In his interview with Ezra Klein, Talarico stated: "I believe Christianity points to the truth. I also think other religions of love point to the same truth. I think of different religious traditions as different languages...we are all talking about the same reality."
This is a coherent worldview. It is called religious pluralism. It has been advocated by various thinkers throughout history. But it is NOT Christianity, and a seminarian knows the difference.
John 14:6: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." This is not a suggestion. This is not one road among many. This is Jesus making the most exclusive truth claim in the history of religion. CS Lewis pointed out that this claim admits of only three rational responses: Jesus was lying, Jesus was a lunatic, or Jesus is Lord. A person cannot rationally accept that Jesus "points to the truth" while simultaneously believing that other traditions point to the same truth through different means. Jesus specifically excluded that possibility with his own words.
Acts 4:12: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." This is Peter, speaking under the Holy Spirit, to Jewish leaders who desperately wanted him to soften that claim. He did not soften it.
Talarico has a right to his universalist beliefs. But he should call it what it is — universalism — rather than presenting it as an expression of authentic Christian faith. The two positions are mutually exclusive, and the man attended seminary. He knows they are mutually exclusive.
11 — THE ITCHING EARS DIAGNOSIS
2 Timothy 4:3-4 describes this phenomenon with accuracy that feels prophetic for our present moment: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths."
Itching ears theology. Comfort preaching. Christianity with the parts that cost you something carefully excised. Abortion support without engaging Psalm 139. Gender affirmation without engaging Genesis 1. Universalism without engaging John 14. Jesus as a prop for progressive policy goals without engaging the Jesus who said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15).
The mainline Presbyterian tradition Talarico represents has been hemorrhaging members for decades. If you want progressivism, you can get it from MSNBC or the Democratic Party. You do not need a church for it. The pews are emptying precisely because a gospel that tells you nothing you did not already believe and demands nothing you were not already willing to give is not a gospel. It is an affirmation service with communion crackers.
This is not a coincidence. It is the fruit test playing out in real time.
12 — THE TREE AND THE FRUIT
Jesus gave us the diagnostic tool. "You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:16). Not by credentials. Not by a seminary degree. Not by the ability to weave scripture references into a campaign speech on Stephen Colbert's YouTube channel. By FRUITS.
What are the fruits of Talarico's theology?
He defends abortion while remaining conspicuously silent about Psalm 139, Jeremiah 1:5, and Luke 1:41-44. He opposes posting the Ten Commandments in schools while claiming to be the Christian standard-bearer in Texas. He announces that God is a verb while scripture presents a God who speaks, acts, forgives, and judges. He claims all religions of love lead to the same destination while calling himself a follower of the One who said, "I am THE way." He states that police officers were killed on January 6 in a speech that is supposed to be about truth-telling. He misquotes Hebrew grammar in a room full of people he assumes will not verify it. He misidentifies the emperor who established Christianity as Rome's state religion by 44 years.
And he has the enthusiastic endorsement of the New York Times, the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and Ezra Klein's podcast as the authentic Christian voice for Texas politics.
If the New York Times editorial board is excited about your Christianity, pause and ask yourself whether you are preaching the faith or their preferred editorial positions with a cross attached.
13 — A WORD TO THE DISCERNING
None of this means James Talarico is a bad human being. I will not say so because I do not know his heart. God does. What I am saying is that the FRAMEWORK he is operating in — Christianity as a vehicle for progressive policy, scripture as endorsement for Democratic positions, theological credentials as voter reassurance while the actual content of scripture is systematically inverted — is a framework the New Testament identifies with startling directness as dangerous.
Jude verse 3 instructs believers to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Not the faith as currently updated by seminary graduates aligned with party platforms. The faith DELIVERED. The fixed deposit. The thing that does not change with polling data or electoral calculations.
That faith includes the sanctity of unborn life. It includes the public acknowledgment of God's law. It includes the male and female distinction in creation. It includes a God who is a personal being — not a verb. It includes a Jesus who is the exclusive path to the Father, not one language among many for the same divine reality. It includes a judgment none of us will enjoy if we have spent our years calling His name in vain on campaign materials.
The warning in Matthew 7 is serious, and the fact that someone sounds pleasing and religious and educated is not a defense against it. It is, in fact, exactly the condition under which the warning applies.
The wolf does not announce itself.
Test the fruit. Read the whole book, not just the verses that support what you already believe. Read the context of the verses you do quote. Check the historical claims before using them as rhetorical foundations. And when a politician's version of Christianity looks almost exactly like his party's platform with a few verses attached — while simultaneously contradicting the exclusive truth claims, the sexual ethics, the nature of God, and the basic factual record in that same tradition — ask yourself, very carefully, which one is actually doing the driving.
Because wolves do not bark.
They bleat.
But what do I know. I am only a science teacher who still requires his students to read the PRIMARY SOURCE before presenting their conclusions — not just the parts they find politically convenient."
83 comments:
Too many on the LEFT have the same or similar theology. People like Dan who twist the Scripture to fit their personal ideology. They are all pawns of Satan as he uses them to sink the country deeper and deeper into hell.
Yes, there absolutely is a problem with progressive christianity which leads to this theology. To be fair, the tendency to create a god to fit one's personal political bent or worldview seems to be fairly universal, yet it's much more systematic on the progressive side of things.
One quibble. Point eight has double the errors claimed, because each of the three examples of errors fail to address the "Christian nationalist" lie which accompanies them. A small point, but I had to mention it.
I like the "Jesus never said..." counter arguments. The "Jesus/God/Bible never said..." argument appears routinely in Dan's comments.
Craig...
"yet it's much more systematic on the progressive side of things..."
[Rolls eyes]
Bullshit. Prove it.
As with comments here, I (almost always) let things stand. I don't expect 100% agreement on everything, and have no problem with quibbles.
Exhibit A. PCUSA and their seminaries. As exemplified by Talarico, the PCUSA has built an entire denomination and seminary system on this sort of "theology". Ehibits B, C, D, and E, the ELCA, the UMC, Episcopal church, and the last few popes. Exhibit F, is the slow slide of the SBC into the same sort of theology.
For better or worse, the non progressive Christian churches are much more inclined to smaller denominations or affinity groups, with less of the baggage of the mainline protestant churches. Progressives have taken over the Mainline denominations, and stripped them of any of their original theological underpinnings leaving them as mostly hollow shells.
The PCUSA alone has 13 seminaries teaching this sort of progressive dogma, the UMC has 18, and the ECLA has at least 7.
While seminaries like Fuller and others are sliding leftward as well.
Yeah, y'all inherited quite the infrastructure and system to spread your progressive gospel.
Craig...
the slow slide of the SBC into the same sort of theology.
Are you suggesting SNC seminaries are getting more liberal??
And if seminary attendance is your "evidence " that "the tendency to create a god to fit one's personal political bent or worldview seems to be fairly universal..." Well, The ultra conservative SBC seminaries produce WAY more Seminary graduates than the more progressive ones.
But never mind. You've shown your hand. You clearly believe without evidence that liberal Christians and students are more inclined to make a god in their image... even though you clearly have no solid evidence.
Thanks for showing your partisan bigotry.
No, I'm suggesting that the SBC in general is sliding into more progressive theology.
Given the fact that the words "seminary attendance" never appear in any comment I have made, and the fact that I specifically DID NOT reference SBC seminaries, I have no Idea who you are responding to. But I do appreciate the commitment to refusing to read for understanding, and to constructing the flimsiest of straw men so that you can feel great accomplishment is tearing those straw men down. But, you ending with an unproven claim is just icing on the cake in this greatest hits collection of a paragraph. And a short paragraph at that.
But, never mind, you've shown your hand. You clearly believe that you can make shit up and respond to the shit you've made up pretending that your made up shit is something I've said. I'd say that you should read for understanding, but that is clearly off of the table at this point.
I am confused at how you have gotten to accusing me of "partisan bigotry" without actually quoting me, paraphrasing me accurately, or understanding anything that I said. I guess you let your "partisan bigotry" get the better of you. Although your imagination is clearly running wild.
If you're having trouble comprehending what I actually said, ask nicely and I'll repeat in using words of as few syllables as possible.
I have a strong belief that I can predict Dan's response to the above exchange. The problem is that if I post it here, then I run the risk that Dan will adjust his response to "prove me wrong". Although, in the past, I've made predictions about his actions or responses and he's done exactly what I predicted.
As to your source's source's opinions... he begins rationally enough by asking the reasonable question:
WHAT A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE
He then cites his source, Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones who cites Matthew 7 as a starting point. Here's what Jesus says about false teachers in Matthew 7:
“Watch out for false prophets.
They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
So, this far, I agree with the source. False teachers, false prophets... they ARE deliberately false, disingenuous, out for their own profit. Other places that speak of false teachers, the biblical text notes that they're doing it to profit themselves.
Thus (and something your sources skip over way too quickly), the first principle we learn when Jesus and others speak of false teachers is that they are NOT the merely mistaken. They are deceitful, deliberately seeking to trick others and profiteer themselves.
But, in spite of how the Bible describes a false teacher, Lloyd-Jones describes them this way:
The false prophet, Lloyd-Jones observed,
does not like to discuss the holiness of God.
He does not like to dwell on sin.
He absolutely avoids the final judgment.
He preaches a Christianity that never makes anyone uncomfortable,
never confronts anyone with hard truths
I. Now, first of all, NONE of that is mentioned in the Bible. THIS is a list he has created from unknown sources, but not the Bible. Just objectively, observably, one can read the Bible and see none of that is mentioned.
II. Secondly, this description does NOT fit Talarico, at least not in full. Talarico IS, of course, speaking words that make people uncomfortable and he IS confronting people with hard truths, including the author of this article.
That your author doesn't agree with his confrontation is irrelevant. IF that made up measure is the measure of a false teacher, then, Talarico is not fitting all the descriptors. AND remember, this is not a biblical description of a false teacher.
As to whether or not Talarico doesn't discuss the "holiness of God," that's not proven here (and again, that's not a biblical standard).
As to whether or not Talarico doesn't like to "dwell on sin," that is not proven here (and again, that's not a biblical standard).
As to whether or not Talarico "avoids the final judgment," that is not proven here (and again, that's not a biblical standard).
I'd be willing to guess that Talarico DOESN'T speak about the human theories of a theoretical "final judgment," probably because he finds that unbiblical, just as I do, at least as evangelicals/calvinists theorize it. So, why WOULD he speak about something he doesn't believe in?
So, right off the bat, your source is not scoring high when it comes to his personal theories about false prophets, as it seems to have nothing to do with what the biblical witness says about false prophets.
More...
Sorry, that was me. I don't know why it doesn't remember who I am!
Continuing with Jesus' teaching on false prophets... what he ACTUALLY says (as opposed to your source's theories):
By their fruit you will recognize them.
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit,
but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and
a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Jesus and other biblical voices make clear that false teachers have "bad fruit," that they are out to deceive and divide and cause harm to enrich and empower themselves. So, we can recognize false teachers NOT by the theories of Lloyd-Jones but by their fruit.
A. Are they people of love, seeking to empower and speak of welcome, grace and forgiveness? OR are they seeking to divide casting accusations at people in the model of the great Accuser?
B. Again, remembering Jesus' teachings, are they ministering/working/allying with the poor and marginalized? THAT is how Jesus said we'd know we're following him. The signs of love, love, love, of care for, allyship with and welcome of the "least of these?"
C. Are they doing this to enrich themselves or to enrich others, especially the poor and marginalized? Remembering that, Biblically, that is where Jesus begins (remembering that when John was asking Jesus if he truly was The One - and not some false teacher - Jesus reminded John of how he preached good news to the poor and helped the sick and marginalized.)
Biblically, Jesus and others repeatedly make clear that we can recognize the bad actors, the accusers, the dividers, the false teachers by their deliberate bad actions and their lack of love. The sincerely mistaken are not deliberately seeking to enrich themselves and are not false teachers. People who merely disagree with other christians in good faith seeking to follow God are not false teachers.
Now, I personally don't know a whole lot about Talarico... maybe he DOES have a lot of hidden baggage, avarice, corruption, greed and power-madness (you know, like certain other politicians favored by evangelicals). Who knows? Maybe something will come out.
BUT, that the many accusers of Talarico are NOT bringing up that kind of thing, but are merely pointing to places where he dares disagree with THEIR human traditions is not a good sign for the accusers and it does make Talarico seem more credible, not less.
Where am I mistaken, from a rational or biblical point of view?
One last thing: The NEXT point that your source accuses Talarico about is that Talarico does not think that God has a penis. That is, that Talarico concludes that God does not have a gender. Well, of course, God doesn't! God has no penis, no testosterone. God is NOT a human man and God is, therefore, NOT A MAN. The various biblical authors DO literally use female and male terms to refer to God and while, in that patriarchal world/time period, YES, God is referred to by those male authors as He, that does not mean that God has a Godly Penis dangling between Their Godly Thighs.
God is NOT a man. Of course.
Then to accuse Talarico of NOT believing that God is a man is an intellectually and biblically lightweight bit of nothingness.
Come on. Be reasonable.
Do you TRULY believe in the Divine Dangler?
As to your unknown source's conclusion:
Test the fruit.
Read the whole book,
not just the verses that support what you already believe.
Read the context of the verses you do quote.
Check the historical claims before using them as rhetorical foundations.
And when a politician's version of Christianity looks
almost exactly like his party's platform with a few verses attached
— while simultaneously contradicting the exclusive truth claims,
the sexual ethics,
the nature of God,
and the basic factual record in that same tradition —
ask yourself, very carefully, which one is actually doing the driving?
...YES! YES, 1000 times, YES! THAT is precisely what I and probably Talarico and progressive Christians in general are saying. Although, one difference is that where he singles out only "sexual ethics" and ignores the economic ethics, the welcoming ethics, the siding with the immigrants, the poor and marginalized ethics, etc, we would include those precisely because we are NOT cherry picking a few verses here and there.
You see, there are ZERO places in the Bible saying we should be opposed to abortion, that we should be opposed to gay guys marrying, to lesbians adopting, to transgender people JUST BEING - ZERO verses! - but there are countless numbers of references to welcoming and loving the immigrants, the poor and marginalized... DOING that is how we recognize the followers of Jesus, according to Jesus!
I agree with his conclusion. I just don't agree that he's living up to it well. He seems to be accusing others of exactly what he is doing himself.
I was wrong, Dan did not act as I predicted. I thought he'd at least have the spine to mention his steaming pile of dung from last night.
Instead, he starts in by lying. There is no "unidentified source", there is a link at the very top of the post which would allow Dan to identify the "source", but he was too lazy to click the link to identify the source.
I do appreciate Dan's commitment to avoiding substance and focusing on his perceptions about others.
You're mistaken in thinking that your subjective, personal, hunches about scripture are objectively "rational or biblical"? "Rational" is not an objective term, and you have not proven either of those claims objectively.
That you've arbitrarily added some additional layers to "false", doesn't mean that Talarico or you are not engaging in false teaching.
Talarico is using his "faith" as a tool to convince people to vote for him for US senate. I'd be willing to bet that a US senator has a salary much higher than Talarico's current position, and that a US senate seat carries many more opportunities to enrich Talarico. But if you want to believe that he's not trying to enrich himself, I can't help you.
FYI, you disagreeing with the author or Loyd-Jones means absolutely nothing.
Excellent job of "missing" the point Talarico is making. Tallarico is misusing scripture to advocate for government policies regarding "trans" people. Despite the mounting evidence that "transing" people is not the panacea it was promoted as, Talarico is pushing for more "transing".
YHWH is spirit, therefore He is neither (physically" male nor female (coming from people who can't define female, this whole conversation is hilarious) male, nor female (biologically). He does, however, refer to Himself in male terms generally. Jesus also referred to Him in male terms (Father, King, etc).
This reality (although I can't believe you'd acknowledge this as reality) does not support Talarico's claims that YHWH is "trans".
No. Yet, I have no reason to doubt that Jesus was physically a human male during His incarnation.
Literally who cares what you think. This notion that the Bible can only address a topic by explicitly stating "Do this or don't do that" is absurd. Coming from someone who dismisses the whole "Bible is a rule book" thing, it's amusing to see you supporting Talarico who's trying to use the Bible as a "rule book" as a means to enrich himself.
The author is correct in that Talarico (and you) tend to cherry pick proof texts to support your worldview/political platform.
Welcome to the pack.
Craig falsely, stupidly falsely, claimed:
The author is correct in that Talarico (and you) tend to cherry pick proof texts to support your worldview/political platform
This is, of course, a stupidly false claim. Of the two of us, WHO knows better how I read the Bible and how I form my opinions/worldview?
Of the two of us, WHO was once deeply ingrained in the conservative worldview and emerged from it BECAUSE I read the Bible and take it seriously?
You can make such arrogant false claims all you want, the real world reality shows that I was conservative, I loved and love the Bible, and I became more progressive in my worldview for two reasons:
1. Reading the Bible and taking it seriously led me there.
2. Observing the actions and reasoning of conservatives pushed me AWAY from their worldview.
That's just the reality of it all, for me. I can't testify for Talarico, and you sure as all that is holy can't.
Shame on you for these ridiculously arrogant accusations. But accusers gonna accuse.
I apologize, I accidentally deleted two of your comments. I carelessly clicked on the wrong button, and I apologize for my carelessness. Please re submit them and I will gladly post them. I believe that I might be able to save you some time by noting that I am well aware of what Talarico is saying and has said. I don't need you to cherry pick and interpret some snippet.
It's strange, you say "Of the two of us, WHO knows better how I read the Bible and how I form my opinions/worldview?", yet you regularly explain to me what I think, how I read the BIble, and how I form my opinions and worldview. It's a double standard that you seem perfectly pleased with.
I know what you've claimed about your past, although you haven't objectively proven this claim. Yet you expect me to accept your claims, while not giving me the same consideration.
This notion of your won little personal "reality" is cute. No wonder you regularly claim to represent "reality".
The problem you have is the you've written immense amounts of posts and comments which presumably contain your beliefs, opinions and worldview. We can see what you write and what Talarico says, it's not rocket science to figure out that your version of christianity and your conception of god align almost perfectly with the DFL platform.
Given your penchant for arrogant accusations and claims, this last is pretty damn funny.
Here is, I believe, the crux of the matter.
Talarico claims that YHWH is "trans" based on the fact that YHWH has no sex because He is spirit. "Trans" is the notion that ones mind/spirit/thoughts are at odds with the reality of one's physical body. Hence the push for large amounts of hormones, drugs, and surgical removal of functioning body parts.
The claim that this describes YHWH is absurd. This alone, and his use of Scripture to push this political agenda, is the problem.
Surely you do not agree with him that YHWH is "trans". do you?
Craig...
Talarico claims that YHWH is "trans" based on the fact that YHWH has no sex because He is spirit.
If you read his comments for understanding, you'll see that Talarico is clearly making the points that...
A. God is genderless, a genderless Holy They.
B. And yet, y'all are fine with God. You don't attack, malign or slander Them.
C. And so, WHY in the name of all that is holy and loving do you endlessly malign transgender people?
Do you understand that this is Talaricos point?
D. I ask again, Do you agree the Holy They have no penis and that God IS non-binary?
Craig...
Surely you do not agree with him that YHWH is "trans". do you?
God was not born with male parts and changed to female parts because God is, by all evidence, non-binary and that is perfectly fine! DO YOU AGREE?
Do you understand that this is the point Talarico is making?
Sorry, I didn't fully complete my thought...
God was not born with male parts and changed to female parts because God is, by all evidence, non-binary and that is perfectly fine! And so, God is not transgender in the sense that They changed from one gender to another, but They are BEYOND gender, Trans-gender in that sense. They are non-binary. And that is okay. They are God. And this is what Talarico is getting at.
Do you understand?
Do you AGREE?
Again, I've read and heard his actual comments, I don't need or want your interpretation of his comments.
A. Then, by your own definition, YHWH is not and cannot be "trans".
B. Well, YHWH is YHWY, why wouldn't I be fine with Him? I'm curious. Does this mean that you actually accept the fact that YHWH is one being who exists in 3 distinct persons?
C. I don't. This is one more example you you lying.
D. I've answered the first idiotic question. As to the second, the answer is clearly no. Certainly by the political and social meaning of "non binary".
No.
No. If, as scripture indicates YHWH is one essence and 3 distinct persons, then "non binary" (as it's defined by the ASPL) does not apply.
You are making a point and claiming that your point is Talaricos.
Craig...
As to the second, the answer is clearly no. Certainly by the political and social meaning of "non binary".
Non binary:
Non-binary is an umbrella term for gender identities that fall outside the male/female binary, representing a gender that is not exclusively man or woman.
Once again, given the definition of non binary, "falling outside the male/female binary,"
DO YOU AGREE THAT GOD IS NON BINARY?
The answer can only be Yes, unless you're fantasizing about God packing a penis (or vagina), reasonably speaking.
Before you continue with this foolishness, please provide an objective, definitive, scientific, precise definition of "non binary".
Craig...
Before you continue with this foolishness, please provide an objective, definitive, scientific, precise definition of "non binary".
Sigh.
Non: NOT
Non binary: NOT binary, not of one of two options.
Merriam Webster:
trans-
3 of 3
prefix
1: on or to the other side of : across : beyond
Do you agree that God is neither male nor female?
Do you agree that God is beyond gender?
Do you agree there is no biblical or rational argument that God is be-penised?
I understand your fairy tale, but I don't agree. If your point is that YHWH transcends biological sex, then I would agree. Yet, He is consistently referred to throughout Scripture (most notably by Jesus Himself) with terminology used for males (King, Father, etc).
The problem is that you are conflating the nature of YHWH (non physical being, 3 persons of one essence) with the socio/political notion of "non binary".
It's bizarre that you seem to have absolutely no problem with Talarico using "scripture" to advance an entirely secular political agenda.
What exactly are these mystery gender identities? Talarico says there are 6. Please identify them. How does one objectively prove the existence of these "gender identities"?
I can understand why you want to continue to move further and further away from biology and genetics in this discussion. As far as I'm aware when we talk about "transing" someone there are only two options to choose from, am I wrong?
No.
Speaking of arrogance and hubris, insisting that you have the one and only True answer is the height of both. I get the playing fast and loose with the terminology, but seriously...
My bad, I was imprecise in my request and you took advantage.
YHWH is wholly other. He transcends the biological differentiations of His Creation, yet He is always referred to as male (King, Father, etc) including by Jesus. The problem is that "non binary" in the political/social sense is not "beyond gender". It might be a claim that there are more than two genders (^ according to Talarico), or it might simply claim to be a new gender. It's another term that means everything and nothing at the same time. You say the YHWH is "beyond gender" (I'd say that He transcends both gender and biological sex) yet no one is claiming that "trans" or "non binary" are "beyond gender". Strangely enough, you've moved the goalposts from "trans" (which is a binary choice) to "non binary" in your feeble attempt to put YHWH in your political box.
As NO ONE has made the argument that YHWH is a physical being with physical secondary sex characteristics, I fail to see the relevance. You're arguing about "gender identity" using the language of biological sex to do so.
But I admire, your obsession with penises.
Craig:
yet no one is claiming that "trans" or "non binary" are "beyond gender". Strangely enough, you've moved the goalposts from "trans" (which is a binary choice) to "non binary" in your feeble attempt to put YHWH in your political box.
You're not fully informed and thus, mistaken. Trans CAN be, "I was born with male parts but I am a woman" or vice versa. BUT, that's not all that trans can mean. It can, indeed, mean Beyond the typical male/female binary. It CAN mean neither male nor female.
fyi.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6830997/
In this case, it has less to do with politics and more with freedom to be the person created in God's image that they were born to be. That's not a Christian/non-Christian viewpoint. It's not a Democrat/GOP viewpoint. It's a humanity viewpoint.
Those christians who try to make it a political or religious viewpoint are doing that themselves, not the LGBTQ folks and their allies. There's nothing inherently political or religious about it, except for those who believe we are created in God's image ("In God's image they created them... male and female, they were created in God's image..." which seems to suggest that God who IS non-binary, is also male AND female in at least.)
Hope that helps clear up your confusion.
Craig came up with this delightful theory:
YHWH is wholly other. He transcends the biological differentiations of His Creation, yet He is always referred to as male (King, Father, etc) including by Jesus.
So, you agree that God is entirely penis-less and thus, NOT male, BUT you theorize that God IDENTIFIES as male and thus, you're glad to accommodate this NON-male by calling Them, HIM?
I mean, that's sort of sweet of you to accommodate God that way. But if so, then why not accommodate those persons born with female parts who identify as male and call them, HIM, as they request? Hell, God didn't even request it and yet you obliged Them by calling Them, Him.
Or maybe you do take that small step of not deadnaming people or misgendering them, is that right? If so, are you also an ally to them, defending them from attacks from conservative Christians, Muslims and others who insist on deadnaming them and abusively call them "HE" when she tells you she's a She?
Craig...
He is always referred to as male (King, Father, etc) including by Jesus.
1. Mostly, not always.
2. Why is that, do you think? (Hint, the right answer is, I don't know...)
Do you guess that God identifies as a male?
Do you guess God prefers He over They or She?
Do you guess that God is offended when someone refers to Them as She?
Do you guess it was more about cultural norms in a patriarchal society of the men who wrote these stories?
Do you personally care if someone prays, Our Mother, Holy Other, who art in heaven?
I think I mostly have, but just to be sure I've answered your questions...
What exactly are these mystery gender identities?
I don't know fully, I'm not an expert in gender studies. But certainly there are male, female, some of both, neither. And there's no mystery, just ask the people who identify as such.
Talarico says there are 6. Please identify them.
You'll have to ask Talarico. I know of at least four, already named.
How does one objectively prove the existence of these "gender identities"?
How does one prove that someone has a headache? How do you prove someone who is left-handed is REALLY left-handed?
You ask the person reporting they have a headache, that they're left-handed or that they're a woman (even though they were born with a penis).
How do YOU know that a trans woman is NOT a woman? How do YOU know that God is not a man or a woman?
As far as I'm aware when we talk about "transing" someone there are only two options to choose from, am I wrong?
Already answered. You are wrong. There are more than two.
Craig:
Speaking of arrogance and hubris, insisting that you have the one and only True answer is the height of both.
What I said to cause Craig to say this:
DO YOU AGREE THAT GOD IS NON BINARY?
The answer can only be Yes, unless you're fantasizing about God packing a penis
You conservatives have endlessly said that IF you were NOT born with a penis, then BY DEFINITION, you are not Male and if you were NOT born with a vagina, you are not a female.
Thus, by YOUR REASONING, God must be non-binary. It's the only rational possibility that fits with YOUR premises.
But maybe I missed something. Do you think you can be born without a penis and still be male? If so, how very progressive of you.
Craig...
It's bizarre that you seem to have absolutely no problem with Talarico using "scripture" to advance an entirely secular political agenda.
Well, if and when he does that, be sure to let me know. I haven't seen him do that.
What I've seen is him responding to religious zealots who DO want to implement some form of christian nationalism by disarming their attempts to abuse the Bible.
But, if you DO see him doing that, be sure to let me know!
I will say that I'm finding it very difficult to find significant quotes/excerpts/transcripts from Talarico online. I'm seeing clips and snippets. And what I see is just common sense decent, Christian and morally progressive in the sense that Jesus taught us to watch out for and ally with the least of these.
Do you have any in context significant excerpts from Talarico that reasonable people would find problematic?
We've thoroughly dissected "non-binary God" and of course, there's nothing inherently mistaken about that. You agree that God is not a man, even if you imagine (perhaps, you tell me) that God prefers he/him.
What else is there that you all find problematic? If you have links, please share.
At this point, all you've done is convince me that this is a thoroughly decent Christian man who is seeking to be a uniter, not a divider.
I think perhaps what you all are objecting to is that many progressive Christians (ie, Christians who love Jesus and the Bible and take those teachings seriously, not literally) are tired of conservative politicians acting/speaking as if they own Christianity and that conservative ideology/worldview=Christianity. And some, like Talarico, like my governor Andy Beshear, are reminding the US and the world that the tradition of Christianity that is promoted by conservatives is not the ONLY way of understanding Jesus' teachings (and indeed, is a less-biblical, less-rational way of doing so)... that they're doing that and you all don't like having people disagree with you all that your version is the "right" version/human tradition.
At any rate, if you have any links, feel free to share. I'm currently listening to him, here:
https://youtu.be/sa6fiO2EgJ4?si=DJiL3ezwopJaNI4p
Talarico, in context. From an interview with Ezra Klein:
My pastor, Dr Jim always said, "religion shouldn't lead to itself, it should lead you deeper into your own life, into your own being." So, I think for Christianity, the genius of Christianity, the miracle of Christianity is not that Jesus is God, it's that God is Jesus. Meaning Jesus helps us understand the mystery, the mystery can't help us understand Jesus. This idea that ultimate reality, the ground of our being, the cosmos... however you want to define God, that that somehow looks like this humble compassionate barefoot rabbi in the first century. Someone who broke cultural norms, someone who stood up for the vulnerable and marginalized, someone who challenged religious authority... that to me is such a revolutionary idea that it leads you to challenge organized religion, because the Gospel, I think, just inherently just tries to break out of some of these religious dogmas and orthodoxies, and challenges religion, itself.
On the difference between living and dead religion...?
"The separation of church and state, I was taught that that constitutional boundary was sacred, NOT that it was beneficial for the state, although there are benefits for our democracy but for the benefit for the church. Because when religion gets too cozy with power we lose our prophetic voice, our ability to see beyond the current systems and current era.
One of my favorite verses in the NT is the sermon on the Mount - which I urge everyone to go back and to read, Christianity 101... - and it's interesting because Jesus takes his followers NOT into the church, not into a business, not into a governmental building... he brings people to a hillside and he says, 'Look at the birds of the air, look at the lilies of the field...'
THIS is how we're supposed to live, this is who we truly are - THAT is revolutionary, it is radical in the true meaning of that word - going to the root of our lives and problems, of our dreams. To me, that is the spirit of our tradition, of breaking these chains, of breaking out of these systems... the word, Church, in Greek, means to be Called out of - called out of our culture, out of our economy, called out of our political system.
THAT is what religion, I think, at its best, does. It's what I was given, I was given that kind of religion because I lived across the street from this incredible church..."
Amen?
At the very least, I'm not seeing anything to disagree with, at all.
Yeah, that whole minimizing the divinity of Jesus thing is no big deal at all. That you find nothing to disagree with isn't surprising at all.
I've posted multiple video clips of him doing exactly that, but don't let little things like that get in the way of your narrative.
Even when he does you'll find excuses to avoid criticizing him.
I've posted multiple links to videos of him. I'm not doing it again because you're lazy or incompetent.
It's amazing that you frame this as anyone who disagrees with you and Talarico is somehow not "reasonable".
Of course you have a man crush on him because he's a leftist politician and progressive christian. Shocking.
All I can do is look at the example that Jesus gave us about how to refer to YHWH. Starting with "Our Father...", multiple uses of "Abba" (father), multiple references to the "Kingdom of YHWH" (unless it's a kingdom without a king) seem like it's possible to figure out.
I get it. "Trans" means everything a or whatever it needs to mean in order to push a political narrative. Thus, it functionally means nothing at this point.
Of course it has everything to do with politics, it's why Talarico and much of the DFL have abandoned a majority of the ASPL base to go all in on "trans" issues.
I'll give you this, when you set your mind on a fantasy, you go all in.
" objective, definitive, scientific, precise definition of "non binary"."
For which I'm still waiting.
Your penis obsession is getting old, and your insistence on asking the same questions over and over despite my answering is also getting old.
Yeah, I mean He's God and all that, not to mention the fact that Jesus (also God) was pretty clear in how He wants us to address YHWH, but who cares about that?
FYI, having a penis is not the single defining characteristic of a male. But why concern yourself with biology, genetics, forensics, and the hard sciences.
If you all of a sudden demanded that you be addressed as Napoleon, I wouldn't indulge your delusion. I remain committed to Truth. If people want to cosplay as something that they are not they are completely free to do so, yet I am free to not play along with their cosplay.
Really, please provide examples of Jesus NOT referring to YHWH in male terms. Again, Jesus was pretty specific when He taught His disciples how to pray. "Our Father, who is in heaven". Seems pretty definitive about the male thing as well as the existence of heaven.
2. Again with claiming that you have "the right answer", by all means prove your claim.
No, I follow the example of Jesus and the witness of Scripture.
I, unlike you, won't attempt to "guess" what YHWH prefers. I can, however, follow the example of Jesus' and the rest of the authors of Scripture.
See above.
No.
Personally, no. It tells me that I need to ignore pretty much anything they say regarding theology. I appreciate knowing that they can be ignored.
Over 24 hours ago, Dan posted a comment full of bullshit, lies, and the like. Since then no acknowledgement of his idiocy, no apology for his "mistakes", no response, nothing. Lots of comments, more BS, but nothing close to an apology or acknowledgement of his idiocy.
Send your predictions to me via email, and I'll post them after Dan acts as predicted.
Craig:
please provide examples of Jesus NOT referring to YHWH in male terms.
In the parable of the Seeking Woman (Luke 15:8–10), the seeking woman is a reference to God, seeking sinners.
When Jesus says, "O Jerusalem, how often have I longed to gather you under my wings like a mother chicken," (Luke 13:34) Jesus is using a feminine illustration, speaking of himself.
Also, many passages in the OT and NT and their references to Wisdom, which is the feminine word, Sophia. In Proverbs, we see Sophia personified.
"Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
At the highest point along the way,
where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
beside the gate leading into the city,
at the entrance, she cries aloud:
“To you, O people, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind."
Etc.
Look, I was quite clear that the dominant terms used by those male writers in that patriarchal society are male-oriented. But that the words used in fallen, patriarchal societies and cultures are male oriented is NOT the same as saying, "So, God REALLY thinks of God's Self in terms of He/Him."
That would just be bad eisegesis.
Craig:
that whole minimizing the divinity of Jesus thing is no big deal at all.
Praytell, WHERE did that happen?
In fact, it observably did NOT happen. That you consistently read wrong meanings INTO what other people say is not the same as them saying/doing what you're reading into their words.
If you say so, maybe read to understand, not just blindly accepting because he's on your side.
Since when have you been on board with Jesus being divine anyway?
So, no you can't actually provide any examples of Jesus referring to YHWH in anything but male terms. Just exegesis of a parable, a metaphor, and the imposition of a Greek term onto Hebrew scriptures.
Nothing comparable to (King, Father, Abba, etc). It's hilarious. We have Jesus, literally and specifically telling us to pray "Our Father...", but that means nothing compared to some random figurative language.
If Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, then we literally have God telling His followers specifically how YHWH is to be referred to. I'm sure that Jesus closest followers intentionally substituted masculine terms in place of the real terms Jesus used and you somehow magically know this.
Of course all eisegesis is bad, and you've just demonstrated that.
"the miracle of Christianity is not that Jesus is God, it's that God is Jesus."
1. This is incoherent and nonsensical.
2. The central theme of the NT is that Jesus literally IS YHWH.
3. The Jewish leaders wanted Him killed for claiming to be YHWH.
4. Jesus is God and God is Jesus literally mean the same thing. That anyone thinks that this bit of nonsense is profound says more about them than about the "pastor" who spewed this.
Just to be clear, Craig is complaining that Talarico "minimized the divinity of God" when he said "the miracle of Christianity is not that Jesus is God, it's that God is Jesus."
IF GOD IS JESUS, That is NOT minimizing the divinity of Jesus. Just the opposite.
??
Craig:
1. This is incoherent and nonsensical.
I understood it. Perhaps reading for understanding would help.
Look, what he's doing - WHILE STILL ACKNOWLEDGING THAT GOD AND JESUS are one, and that Jesus is divine, LITERALLY according to what he said - is making a distinction. His point is that God, in Jesus, is helping make the Mystery of God more clear. As my conservative forebears have said, Jesus is the clearest manifestation of God and God's ways.
An almighty everlasting God somewhere off in heaven and yet, also still here, but invisible? THAT is a mystery hard to wrap one's human mind around.
This humble barefoot rabbi, Jesus, who came quite clearly saying he'd come to preach literal GOOD NEWS? That's understandable. That's real. That is God embodied, literally the divine made flesh.
And this Jesus came teaching us the way to understand God's Ways (ie, the "laws" given to ancient Israelis in a specific time and place) is to understand that ALL the law is summed up in Love God, Love humans... THAT is clear. THAT is understandable. We can wrap our minds around that.
And yet, what does that look like? Again, Jesus makes it quite clear: When you have fed the hungry, comforted the lonesome, provided drink to the thirsty, healing and community for the sick, when you've welcomed the stranger, you have done that to GOD's own Self. THAT is love!
THAT is understandable. This divine Jesus, this God who is Jesus, he's the one who's made the vague and unclear, clear.
What is incoherent? Nonsensical? How is saying God is Jesus "minimizing the divinity of Jesus..."?!
THAT claim is nonsensical, right?
As to the rest of your numbered responses, I don't know what they're referencing. I asked you WHERE did Talarico minimize Jesus' divinity? Your first answer explains what you were thinking (even though it was simply mistaken and you were apparently confused by it). But what are 2, 3 and 4?
The central theme of the NT is, according to Craig, that Jesus literally is God, as Talarico said. But, first of all, who SAYS that THE "central theme of the NT" is that Jesus is literally God? And secondly, as noted, IF God is Jesus, then Jesus IS God, right? HOW is that minimizing his divinity?
And when you say: "The Jewish leaders wanted Him killed for claiming to be YHWH." How does that "minimize" Jesus' divinity? Also, that is ONE of several reasons found in the NT text why they plotted to kill him.
That anyone thinks that this bit of nonsense is profound
Well, you not finding it compelling is not the same as him minimizing Jesus' divinity. And the notion of Jesus being the clearest representation of God IS a profound thing for many of us who love Jesus and his teachings. Why does it anger you so?
Hell, the notion that Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” is even biblical.
Why do you kick at the goads?
Craig:
Since when have you been on board with Jesus being divine anyway?
?
??!!?
What are you talking about? I've never said Jesus isn't divine. I've been quite clear that I believe that Jesus is the living son of God. In TWO decades of conversations with me, you've missed that?! How weird.
Yup, missed that entirely. But good on ya.
I’ll note that you said the “living son of god” as opposed to divine. But I’m assuming you mean the same thing.
If you say so. I’m sure your bias has nothing to do with your man crush.
Read for understanding.
Craig:
I’ll note that you said the “living son of god” as opposed to divine. But I’m assuming you mean the same thing.
I've said this endlessly over the years of accusations against me.
I believe in God the Creator of the universe;
I believe in Jesus, the son of God - GOD's own Self;
Who literally was born a human into this world;
100% God. 100% man;
Who taught the Good News Gospel to the poor and marginalized and, by extension, to the rest of us;
Who quickly irritated the religious leaders of his days, the arrogant ones devoted to living a life of religious rules;
Which, said religious leaders quickly decided that they were opposed to Jesus and soon began plotting to kill him;
And they DID kill him, with Rome's support, because, in part, he was disrupting the power elite;
And that three days later, Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by man people;
and that Jesus, in his life and sermons and in his church that followed thereafter taught a good news of Grace and of a beloved community where all are welcome, beginning with the poor and marginalized;
And that Jesus literally did NOT teach that all humans are totally depraved;
And that Jesus literally did NOT teach that most of humanity would go to "hell" for their "sins" because they did not repent in the right way and thus God was unable/unwilling to forgive them and so the majority of us would go to hell for this "sin nature" and imperfect lives with sins happening all the time;
Because Jesus did NOT teach that God was a cruel jackass;
But rather that God SO LOVED the whole world that God was not willing that ANY should perish;
and here we're back to the beloved community and grace, etc, etc, etc.
You see, as I've been fairly clear over the years, other than my not affirming the human traditions that teach a "hell" or "sin nature" or that humanity "deserves to go to hell because of that sin nature or the sin in our lives or HOWEVER you want to phrase it," and thus, I disagree with the human traditions of PSA, but the rest of it - Jesus is God, God is God, we should repent for our sins and believe in Jesus - WHICH IS NOT merely affirming that Jesus is God, for even "the demons" affirm that - but it's believing in Jesus' WAY of grace that he taught... that I love the Bible and take it seriously, etc, etc,
in other words, in many of the normal things that conservative Christians say one must "do" to be saved, I believe those. I simply don't accept the human traditions in the vein of that human heretic slayer, Calvin.
Well, the first 4 lines are pretty good. The rest is just your usual eisegesis and arbitrary limits on Scripture. I guess I appreciate the fact that you seem to get the basics correct, although I also suspect that your version of "Create" probably interesting.
So, the first four lines are pretty good, you say. The ones that you and I agree upon. BUT, when you reach a line/point that you somehow disagree with, you call it eisegesis and "arbitrary limits on Scripture."
Let's look. Line FIVE, the first one you presumably have a problem/disagreement with:
Jesus taught the Good News Gospel to the poor and marginalized and, by extension, to the rest of us;
Well, given that Jesus literally began his ministry by saying:
the Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because God has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
These are all literally speaking of preaching good news to the poor and marginalized. WHERE is the eisegesis? WHERE is the limitation on Scripture?
On the flip side, you appear to promote (it's hard to tell because you don't answer questions clearly and directly) some form of PSA, even though Jesus literally did not preach anything like that.
Where is the eisegesis... in my words/ideas or yours?
As to the next several lines...
Who quickly irritated the religious leaders of his days,
Literally recorded in the gospels.
the arrogant ones devoted to living a life of religious rules;
Literally recorded in the gospels.
Which, said religious leaders quickly decided that they were opposed to Jesus and soon began plotting to kill him;
Literally recorded in the gospels.
And they DID kill him, with Rome's support
Literally recorded in the gospels.
Where is the eisegesis?
etc.
As to your (conservatives', if not you personally, since it's so hard to get you to nail anything down) various human traditions and theories, I took the time to look up the conservatives on GotQuestions on the topic of the human theory of total depravity and they offer a lot, but not much from Jesus. The FIRST Gospel/Jesus quote they offer is this:
[The topic of total depravity] acknowledges that the Bible teaches that we sin because we are sinners by nature. Or, as Jesus says, “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.”
THAT verse from Jesus is literally NOT teaching what they claim TD theory suggests. It's acknowledging that good trees produce good fruit, and the trees, in that parable, represent people. It's literally suggesting that there ARE people who are good because their fruit/deeds/spirit are good.
The same for the second verse they offer, from John 3 (where it says that God so loved the world that God was not willing that ANY should perish but ALL should be saved, something those in the calvinist tradition to not believe will happen)... where "but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light...
In other words, these verses and teachings from Jesus is not speaking of all humanity, just the ones who reject the light/with "bad fruit."
https://www.gotquestions.org/total-depravity.html
So, again, who is reading into the texts something that isn't there (eisegesis) and who is taking Jesus' words pretty literally?
fyi.
Thank you ever so much for making my point so well. First, the problem is not that I disagree with you. The problem is that you base your entire position on one short passage to the exclusion of everything else Scripture says about why Jesus came. You have a laser focus on one aspect of Jesus earthly ministry, while ignoring or minimizing everything else that Scripture tells us about Jesus' ministry. You do this, in part, by excluding everything that isn't explicitly in a "sermon", even though your proof text isn't in a "sermon", it's Jesus reading a prophecy about Himself.
Yes, in this one example they talk about the "poor, prisoners, blind, and oppressed". But this isn't the only Scripture that speaks to Jesus' reason for His ministry. The eisegesis is in you insisting on taking this one proof text and elevating it above all else and imposing your political worldview on it. Jesus said that He was going to do this, not the the government should collect taxes to do this for Him. The limitation is in your excluding any and every other Scripture that offers any other possible explanation that runs counter to your presupposition.
I have repeatedly and clearly made my position on PSA known, if you are unclear on it, it's not my fault.
In this case, it's in yours. Have I engaged in eisegesis at some point, probably. But that's just one more way for you to drive this thread away from the topic.
The eisegesis is in you imposing your social/political worldview on the text and ignoring or minimizing any possible alternative explanation. In the case of who killed Jesus, you claim that "And they DID kill him, with Rome's support", which is clearly wrong. If anything the Romans killed Jesus with the support of some of the Jewish leaders. But why worry about niggling little details.
"THAT verse from Jesus is literally NOT teaching what they claim TD theory suggests."
By all means, prove this claim.
Again, thank you for proving my point. You exclude or minimize any Scriptural support except the explicit words of Jesus and then only when they appear in specific contexts.
You are. Of course you don't offer any support or proof of your claims, just insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
You wonder why we get exasperated with you while you make these absurd, off topic, comments. You insist without proof that your hunches are correct, in your arrogance and hubris you can't imagine the possibility that you might be wrong, or that your eisegesis of a few snippets of Scripture you use a proof test could be mistaken.
It's becoming more and more difficult to take you seriously. You lie, misrepresent, and go off topic so often that you simply forfeit what little credibility you might have had.
Just for grins. Prove objectively that the "all should be saved" means that "all" will be saved. Or provide a coherent explanation as to why "all" are not saved? While you're at it provide objective proof of what "all" are saved from.
It's the usual thing, that you insist the reading of Isaiah, even in Isaiah itself, refer to the materially poor, physically blind, imprisoned or oppressed, which not only indicates favoritism discouraged in Scripture, but also ignores the fact that "the poor" can indeed be people of means who understand their own inadequacies before the Lord. It makes no sense as a concern for the material poor. The original word speaks to the most downtrodden...those beholden to the good graces of strangers for their sustenance. We can do nothing without God Almighty and it is such about whom Jesus speaks.
Where Dan's "logic" breaks down for me is the fact that he's insisting that this one small snippet of Isiah's prophecies are 100% accurate, while not taking the same stance toward the rest of Isiah's prophecies (or any prophecies). OT prophecy is a specific category, which was claiming that the prophet was speaking directly for YHWH. For this to be True, it requires that YHWH be actively involved in events in question, and to be so involved as to anoint someone to be His spokesman. This also requires some degree of supernatural intervention. Now Dan has been pretty clear that he isn't particularly down with YHWH intervening directly in events here on earth, nor is he particularly down with the supernatural. Yet, somehow, this one small instance (which just happens to align with his social/political worldview, sort of) magically is the exception to his doubts about those things which can't be proven to his satisfaction.
That Jesus didn't really achieve any of those goals during His earthly ministry, that Jesus didn't command paying taxes to the Romans/Jewish leaders/Herod to allow the government to achieve the things He said the He would do, seems problematic for the "Raise taxes so the government can fix these problems" folx. As you note, "poor" was not exclusively used by Jesus to only refer to the materially poor. Further the snippet Dan attributes to Jesus, should rightly be attributed to Isiah, speaking as a prophet of YHWH.
I really should do this more often, when Dan pushes a snippet of scripture as a proof text. It's always interesting to see what he excludes or ignores. If Jesus was quoting Isiah (essentially the Hebrew version of a lectionary text for the service), it seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus did not intend that there was an arbitrary cut off in the middle of a thought and that Jesus was acknowledging that the entire prophecy in Isiah 61 was accurate. I'm just not sure that Dan is as blindly accepting of the rest of the chapter.
"to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,"
Ever notice how the Dan's of the world ignore the vengeance part?
"They will rebuild the ancient ruins
and restore the places long devastated;
they will renew the ruined cities
that have been devastated for generations."
This seems to be a prophecy of a return to/reestablishment of Israel.
"Strangers will shepherd your flocks;
foreigners will work your fields and vineyards."
Slaves, captives, of something else?
"And you will be called priests of the Lord,
you will be named ministers of our God.
You will feed on the wealth of nations,
and in their riches you will boast."
"But wealth and riches are bad, right?
"Instead of your shame
you will receive a double portion,
and instead of disgrace
you will rejoice in your inheritance.
And so you will inherit a double portion in your land,
and everlasting joy will be yours."
Whaaaaaaat?
"Their descendants will be known among the nations
and their offspring among the peoples.
All who see them will acknowledge
that they are a people the Lord has blessed.”"
I think that the Dan's of the world must have missed this part.
"I delight greatly in the Lord;
my soul rejoices in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels."
Salvation and righteousness, not feeding the poor?????
"For as the soil makes the sprout come up
and a garden causes seeds to grow,
so the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness
and praise spring up before all nations."
A Sovereign Lord who is directly and specifically involved with the well being of His people. That's crazy talk.
Craig:
The eisegesis is in you imposing your social/political worldview on the text and ignoring or minimizing any possible alternative explanation.
Once again, you forget that I was a PSA believing conservative. Of course, I considered other possible meanings of the texts involved. In fact, I believed as you do. It was the TEXT that took me away from believing as those in your tradition (my tradition back then) to what I believe now. EVEN AFTER considering the alternative theories of the Calvinist human traditions (and their kin).
I believe what I'm believing is the much more Jesus-centric/consistent with Jesus' actual teachings that the other human theories I used to believe. Just as you believe them now as the best option, I used to believe them.
I just grew to realize that Jesus does not teach anything like PSA and his gospel is not the PSA bad news of the Calvinist human tradition and their ilk.
But that's all been pointed out before, hasn't it?
Craig:
In the case of who killed Jesus, you claim that "And they DID kill him, with Rome's support", which is clearly wrong. If anything the Romans killed Jesus with the support of some of the Jewish leaders
You're simply textually mistaken. IN the text and context, it was the Jewish rule-following zealots who drove the kangaroo court that led to Jesus' execution. They just had to partner with their Roman allies to accomplish this.
Look at the text. Rome was less-than-thrilled at the idea, but went along with it at the prompting of the religious zealots who wanted to see Jesus killed.
But we've covered all that before, too.
Craig:
If Jesus was quoting Isiah (essentially the Hebrew version of a lectionary text for the service), it seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus did not intend that there was an arbitrary cut off in the middle of a thought and that Jesus was acknowledging that the entire prophecy in Isiah 61 was accurate.
Perhaps. IF and only if you consider Isaiah some fortune teller and take his "prophecy" in the sense of "this is a foretelling of the Messiah's way." But look it up. The Hebrew word for Prophet is more of a teacher or one inspired by God, NOT a fortune teller or seer.
And so, what did I learn in my good old Southern Baptist Sunday School and sermons? That Jesus is the plainest, clearest understanding of God's way than any other texts and thus, we should interpret the whole of the Bible - including the prophets, including Paul, etc - through JESUS' words, not the other way around. And interpret the clear through the more obscure.
Jesus is being abundantly clear. Jesus did NOT include a lot of Isaiah's words about punishment, vengeance or the Calvinists' angry little god. Jesus was making it clear that he was preaching good news to the poor, to the marginalized. And not only in that one passage, but throughout his ministry. (So, quit with that pernicious false claim - it undermines your credibility as a serious student of Jesus.)
Now, I totally GET that those in the human calvinist tradition have often been attempted to interpret Jesus' clear teachings through certain OT passages or through certain Pauline passages, but that's not the way to get to the clearest understanding of Christian good news. The clearest way is through the teachings of Jesus. You interpret Isaiah through JESUS' words, not the other way around. You interpret Paul through JESUS' words, not the other way around.
Also, it's sort of a bastardization of the great Prophet, Isaiah's words to ignore his constant references to God saving the poor and marginalized from the powerful oppressors to pretend that isn't one of his primary teachings.
Look it up. Poor, poverty, etc, show up dozens of times in Isaiah. Oppress, oppression, etc, show up dozens of times in Isaiah. Wealth, rich, etc, show up many times.
Adultery? zero.
Sexual? zero.
Homosexual? zero.
Sacrifice? 11 times, but usually in a negative context.
Don't abuse Isaiah to support a medieval or later human tradition. It's not in there.
And speaking of Isaiah 61, LOOK at what he's actually saying, rather than look for support for your medieval or calvinist human traditions:
The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners,[a]
2 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of joy
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
Where Isaiah DOES mention "vengeance," WHY is it there? WHO will receive vengeance? ALL of humanity because we are all "totally depraved..."?
OR is it speaking specifically of the oppressors who oppress the poor and marginalized?
It's the latter, thus undermining your attempt at bastardizing and prostituting Isaiah in support of your human traditions.
I know that sounds harsh, but actually LOOK at what's being said in Isaiah, rather than seeking to cherry pick some verses that you think will help you defend your human traditions.
It's not there, man.
And when you cherry pick some verses out of context saying that it's not about feeding the hungy or siding with the poor, you're missing the contextual point and thus, you're promoting an exactly opposite conclusion as what Isaiah is actually saying.
For I, the Lord, love justice;
I hate robbery and wrongdoing.
In my faithfulness I will reward my people
and make an everlasting covenant with them...
The wealth that is being taken away is from the powerful, rich oppressors who have stolen from the poor oppressed people of Israel (and by extension, as Jesus makes abundantly clear, ALL the poor and oppressed.)
Yes, by all means, look at the Isaiah that is being cited. But look at it for understanding, as opposed to cherry picking this and that out of context to defend your human traditions.
Well, Dan is now on board with vengeance as a characteristic of YHWH.
It literally doesn’t say specifically who or why. I just noted that you always leave vengeance out when you proof text the snippet.
Again, it doesn’t say specifically who. You’re free to eisegete whatever meaning you want, but it’s not explicit in the text.
That you insist something is the the text, which is not, is bad enough. That you lie about why I pointed it out is worse.
But you are correct that your eisegesus is “not there man”.
Yet again you cherry pick and ignore what the text says about the wealth stolen from others.
Since I quoted much more of the context than you, your “cherry picking” accusation is just one more false claim on your part. I’m the one who cited context that you regularly exclude from your proof text.
But I do appreciate your implicit endorsement if the entire prophecy surrounding your proof text.
Who cares what you claim you used to believe and what you claim to believe now? The issue is not your changing beliefs, but what the text says. What you believe, absent objective proof, is completely irrelevant to the post. That your ego is convinced that your hunch is correct means nothing to anyone but you.
Your constant use of your subjective beliefs as some bizarre sort of proof is ridiculous.
If you’re not going to read the text for what it says, I’m not going to argue with you about your hunches.
The Jews did not have the authority to put Jesus to death. The Roman governor is the only one with that authority. The Jews played no active role in Jesus’ execution and they had to lie to Pilate about His “crime”.
I consider Isaiah to be an OT prophet, with everything that encompasses. Further, Isiah claimed to be speaking directly for YHWH, it seems incoherent to pick and choose line by line which you’ll acct. Of course Jesus did acknowledge that the passage was an accurate prophecy about Himself.
I really don’t know how I could be more clear about this, so I will try once more. I don’t care what you claim to have learned in Sunday school or sermons 50 years ago. I don’t care what you believe, or don’t believe. I don’t care to blindly accept claims that you make which you don’t prove objectively. I apologize if this is too blunt, but the reality is that I simply do not care and do not consider your subjective hunches, no matter how forcefully you present them, to be worth wasting my time with. You saying that you believe something, is not an argument.
One last thought. Dan’s entire theology about Jesus is based on a proof text of a snippet of a prophecy which Dan edited. His argument is that this snippet of a larger prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus when Jesus made the claim about the prophecy being fulfilled by him. Now, Dan is arguing that we can’t really expect Isaiah’s prophecies to be accurate. Except for this one edited snippet that Jesus referred to. I only wish that I had Dan’s magical ability to go through scripture line by line and parse, which lines are accurate, and which lines are not.
Craig...
Dan’s entire theology about Jesus is based on a proof text of a snippet of a prophecy which Dan edited.
As always, this remains stupidly false. My theology is based upon ALL the teachings of Jesus, in the context of the OT stories and the rest of the NT, as well as on common sense, basic moral and spiritual reasoning and that of God, in me and all of humanity.
In spite of being heavily indoctrinated in conservative, traditional human opinions, because I read and re-read, etc the WHOLE Bible, because I prayed and meditated upon God's holy word, listening to my conservative traditionalists who taught me to take the bible seriously and Jesus teachings especially seriously... because of all that, I came to realize that many of those human traditions were largely absent from the Bible, but this Good News for the poor and marginalized is found throughout the Bible and that, indeed, it was foundational to Jesus' teachings, along with the notions of God's beloved community, the realm of God.
As I've made clear over the years, these themes are consistent throughout the Bible and are THE most discussed topics in all the biblical witness.
Hardly based on "one proof text."
Not that you can see or hear it, but it's there for those with ears to listen.
You keep saying that, yet you have one proof text that you almost always resort to as the proof text that is foundational to your hunch.
That you subordinate that proof text to yourself, isn’t surprising either.
As noted elsewhere, actions speak louder that words. Your action is to fall back on one single proof text.
It might be a quibble, but I stand by the position that the Jews (not ALL the Jews) killed Jesus.
Before I go further, I will simply clarify that more truthfully, gave Himself up to be put to death, taking our place, for the atonement of sin. BUT...and this is no small thing...the means by which He was put to death was the result of Jewish plotting. The Romans were the weapon by which the Jews put Christ to death. Were it not for the Jewish religious leaders, the Romans would not have crucified Jesus, and likely even would not have arrested Him.
Carry on...
"Once again, you forget that I was a PSA believing conservative."
Once again, you forget that we've never read any words of your which suggest the slightest understanding of conservatism...either political or Christian...and your understanding of Scripture ain't much better. I've no doubt you were just a younger version of your current self, parroting what was said by your elders without ever truly grasping any of it.
""I just grew to realize that Jesus does not teach anything like PSA..."
Where's the growth in missing the places where He speaks in terms now labeled "PSA"? We've pointed them out many times. You reject what you don't like and what doesn't fit your socialist, deviancy embracing narrative.
An unproven claim at best. In what endeavor do people automatically accept claims about a person, made by that person with no external corroboration, as accurate. It used to be, in the journalism world, that you couldn't run a story based on a single source. Likewise in the intelligence world, it is uncommon to take action based on information from a single source. Yet Dan expects us to believe him with no external corroboration. As you note, if he did at one point "believe" PSA, his "belief" was based on a poor enough understanding that he cannot accurately summarize the concept today. Strangely enough, PSA has an incredibly robust amount of scriptural support, including Jesus. The problem with Dan's hunch is that it disconnects what Jesus said, from the OT sacrificial system to which He was referring. His arbitrary exclusion of diminished of anything not preached in a "sermon" is problematic as well. It further ignores the very name of Jesus, given to Mary by the angel in a message from YHWH, and (by excluding anything but "sermons") excluded Jesus' words on the cross, as well as His teaching to the Apostles at the Last Supper.
It is clearly not a quibble, as it distorts the reality of the situation.
Your point is excellent, and aligns with what Jesus Himself said. Further, you do acknowledge the reality which mitigates your initial claim.
The fact is that the Jews did not have the authority to put Jesus to death, and certainly did not/would not have crucified Him had they possessed that authority. Crucifixion was a significant part of the fulfillment of prophecy.
The Jewish leaders absolutely got the ball rolling which led to Jesus' crucifixion, and the crowd was a reason why Jesus was crucified rather than Barabbas. Yet Pilate absolutely had the final (earthly) authority over Jesus' crucifixion. In modern legal terms, the Jewish leaders would probably be an accessory before the fact, to Jesus death.
I am not absolving the Jewish leaders for their role in Jesus' death, but merely being as accurate as possible.
Part of my problem with the "Jews killed Jesus" construct is that it was the excuse for mass killings of Jews by Christians in Europe.
It is simplistic and historically inaccurate (by excluding critical context).
Ultimately, though, the prophetic record as well as Jesus' won words indicate that the time and manner of Jesus' death was ordained before Jesus was born and that He was a willing participant in YHWH's plan.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/a-guide-to-the-study-of-the-prophets/
https://www.dwellcc.org/classes/electives/hermeneutics/prophets
https://www.patternsofevidence.com/2025/10/24/what-makes-a-biblical-prophet/
https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/how-to-read-the-prophets
Dan likes to take a wooden, literal, approach to some definitions. So, he finds something that defines angel and prophets as "messengers" of something similar and latches on to that. Yet it seems important to understand who the messenger represents. A messenger from Dan, carries very little authority. A messenger from POTUS carries more authority. A messenger from YHWH carries even more authority. It's easy to lump all messengers together, based on a a dictionary definition. When the message author is taken into account, it changes things.
Add to that Dan's penchant for reading into Scripture that which doesn't exist at all in any way, such as how by virtue of his personal "serious and prayerful" study he "just grew to realize that" it's somehow possible God would bless the union of two same-sex people who indulge in what God called "detestable". He can't see what he doesn't want to see, and just as mysteriously sees what he does. Weren't we talking about "credibility" in another thread? Where's Dan's here?
To be fair, we all read our own things into Scripture to some degree. What most of us don’t do is to place our subjective Reason as the final arbiter of what Scripture really means. In practice, this means that we wrestle with Scripture that doesn’t align with what we think, and ultimately submit to Scripture. We don’t make excuses or exceptions that give us wiggle room. We don’t limit Jesus’ authority to only His public sermons. Any interpretive system that results in Scripture always aligning with one’s political views or worldview, is seriously flawed.
But to be accurate and fair to most, few read into Scripture that which is not at all Scriptural as does Dan and his kind.
I'm not sure how this is somehow counter to what I said. The phrase "to some degree" indicates a continuum which would seem to extend from those who barely read anything into scripture to those who read so much into scripture that what they read in replaces scripture.
That Dan is on one end of the continuum kind of goes without saying,
Post a Comment