How, pray tell, does that help the GOP? Being shamed by people choosing solidarity with the oppressed is an embarrassment for the GOP not for Democrats. I think y'all are so accustomed to being the elite and privileged, and beyond being questioned that y'all can't even see it when you're being taken down.
Of course, Jesus said it best..., what you did for the least of my family you did for me and what you did NOT do for the least of these... the poor, the oppressed, women, the abused, the marginalized..., you have not done for me.
Which side are you on, Boys, which side are you on?
(In the words of another great woman, an ally to the poor and marginalized .) . Dan
It's what Jesus literally said. What you do for the poor, what you do for the imprisoned, for the hungry, for the sick, for the marginalized... What you do for them you're doing for Jesus.
It's odd how I can take Jesus' words literally and you push back against it over and over again. Preferring, it would seem, your own version of a religion that has much less to do with Jesus' actual words and teachings. But then I imagine you just can't see that. More's the pity.
And in case you don't get what I was just saying, I'm pointing out the reality: how Jesus literally aligned himself with and identified with the poor and marginalized, just like this group of people that you are trying to mock and failing to understand that they have the upper moral and rational hand.
I totally get what the speaker was doing, and that he was doing it in front of an audience who was going to vote for Talarico regardless. He was stirring up the rabid, committed base.
The problem is that that same sort of crap doesn't play as well with the independent or uncommitted voters as it does for the base. Especially when GOP candidates plaster it all over the media. This kind of rhetoric is aimed at the 20-40% of hyper partisans who vote based only on the letter behind the name on the ballot. The other 60-80% of the electorate is going to react much differently to this, especially in a place like TX. Lots of devout Hispanic Catholics who might cross party lines, or sit this one out.
I absolutely take Jesus' words literally, in context, and within the entirety of Scripture. What I don't do, is treat your paraphrases as if they are Jesus' words.
It's interesting what Dan seems to have done here. By inserting the "my family", he opens the door to the fact that Jesus was not referring to every poor/naked/imprisoned/hungry person on earth. That Jesus was specifically referring to "His sheep", the ones that were "given" to Him by YHWH, the ones that hear His voice and respond, and not referring to everyone who ever existed. Or, this could be Dan slipping into universalism.
Jesus never promoted defending depraved immorality like Dan does. It was absolutely NOT a teaching of Jesus, nor did He ever say whatever you did NOT do to enable Dan's "beloved community" of sexual perverts and abortionists, you did to Me.
Someday Dan will actually have to "seriously and prayerfully" study Scripture instead of just trying to convince us he has.
Jesus aligned Himself with all sorts of people who were not in your pet demographic groups. Jesus closets disciples were fishermen, tax collectors, and ordinary Jews, not poor, hungry, or in prison. Paul, who Jesus aligned with, was a tent maker and a Pharisee. Nicodemus, was a Pharisee and tax collector. Jesus aligned with a Roman Centurion and at least one hooker. But let's ignore that in favor of one proof text from a parable. Do you take the "King" language as woodenly literal as the "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’? How about the “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”, woodenly literal or not?
What Jesus expects us to do for the depraved perverts of Dan's "beloved community" is to lead them to Jesus, not to a marxist liberation theology which exploits the Words of Jesus to legitimize their chosen immorality. What Jesus expects us to do for the spiritually poor, those imprisoned by their sin nature's, those hungry for God's Truth is not what Dan corrupts such encouragement to be.
This dude in the video is, like Dan, aligning himself with actual and factual sexual deviants...those who are in conscious rebellion against God and His Will, and somehow, Dan expects that we should be ashamed we won't join them on their Highway to Hell. Jesus NEVER aligned Himself with such people, but instead sought to bring them out of their spiritual poverty and enslavement to sin. Dan prefers to stay there and wallow. He's made his choice. I choose God.
"That Jesus was specifically referring to "His sheep", the ones that were "given" to Him by YHWH, the ones that hear His voice and respond"
Well yeah if you are a believer in your particular human tradition where a god picks and chooses this person but not that person in their own crazy, careless, helter-skelter, godless manner. Fortunately, we need not necessarily affirm that kind of god that you have in your human traditions. And keeping in mind the text does not demand that human interpretation. That's something you're reading into it.
But it explains a lot about why you don't understand and why you interpret the Bible in such weird ways that end up dismissing Jesus' teachings, where you think you're following them. More's the pity.
I used "my family" instead of "least of my brothers" because Jesus was not talking just about males. I was being more inclusive, following closer to what Jesus was actually saying. You don't think he was talking about just "the brethren," do you?
And see there? you're focusing on brother rather than the least of these, missing the rather clear point.
At that point in Matthew, especially, it could probably be argued that by "brothers and sisters" that Jesus was referring primarily to, if not only, to the Jews.
I'm literally referring directly to Jesus' words where He is speaking about His followers. Noting else. Maybe you don't take those words quite so literally huh?
What specific "teachings of Jesus" have I "dismissed"?
Well, given that every translation I've seen says "brothers and sisters", who knows what you're talking about. Although it's interesting that you decided all on your own that (if your translation only says "brothers" that you knew better than anyone else what Jesus really meant and just made the change.
I'm not just focusing on "brother". I am pointing out that you tend to be very flexible in how you paraphrase Jesus' words and manipulate your paraphrases willy nilly to align with your preconceptions. All while passing your paraphrases off as quotes.
Oh, and on your proof texting snippets from a parable out of context.
Re, brothers and sisters, clearly I was thinking about the King James version. ...
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
My point stands though, you are saying that you believe Jesus is just speaking of a very specific subset of followers or even just Jewish followers. I do not think the text or reason justify that clannish view. It is a failure to understand Jesus' words in the context of Jesus' teachings.
As we see here you all are all about limiting while we're all about widening the circle.., widening the inclusion and grace, up against y'all limiting it. A deeply grievous and slanderous take on Jesus' teachings.
And also an irrational abuse of the notion of grace.
My point stands. Just as with the slaves and the oppressed all shouting out, "I am Spartacus,.." these people are taking the stand of the poor and oppressed up against the oppressors and the powerful. You've made your choice as to which side you're on. I pray that grace finds you.
You think this is a winning issue because in your clannish little circles, that is the common view. But I do not believe most of the world or the U.S. is as graceless as your circles are. I think it's a great failure to assume that people will find this Kinda video problematic just because you all do.
Nothing whatsoever in what you flippantly and gracelessly dismiss as our " particular human tradition" (in lieu of a legitimate alternative understanding of what's commonly known and understood as "Christianity ") indicates anything akin to a "crazy, careless, helter-skelter, 'godless' manner of separating sheep and goats. You've simply chosen to regard the goats of your "beloved community" of sexual deviants as sheep. How dare God decide who will or won't be a part of HIS "beloved community" without clearing it with almighty Dan!
But of course, Dan...no Christian he...knows better than God and chooses instead a god of his own making, appropriating the things of God...including His Only Begotten Son and select snippets of His teachings...in order to posture as a Christian.
"I'm literally referring directly to Jesus' words where He is speaking about His followers."
Where does Jesus say he is speaking to/about his followers? He is speaking to "all the nations," according to the literal text. And then he addresses the righteous and the unrighteous, as defined by their actions in the story.
Jesus...
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
The only ones he addresses as his brothers and sisters are " the least of these..." the poor and marginalized.
Just like you did with something I said the other day, you copy/paste something then you lie about what you just copy/pasted. You put “all the nations” in quotes as if Jesus ad said that, then copy/paste what He actually said. But for someone who is arrogant enough to change Jesus’ recorded words to something more inclusive and more like what Jesus really meant, this is clearly no big deal.
I’m surprised you didn’t unilaterally change “King” because “King” makes you uncomfortable and the whole notion of a “Kingdom of YHWH” makes you feel icky.
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."
It is what Jesus said EARLIER in the parable leading up to the quote I shared.
I repeat, Where does Jesus say he is speaking to/about his followers?
Nice excuse. It’s not like “brethren” isn’t used to include men and women.
I believe that Matthew is written specifically to a Jewish audience and focuses on the Jewishness of Jesus. Further, Jesus Himself was very clear until the end of Matthew that the Gospel was to be intentionally spread beyond Israel. It goes back to the role of Israel in Salvation and the whole “save His people…” among other things. Obviously salvation beyond Israel was part of the plan, but not at the time Matthew covers.
I suspect that your problem is that you only look at the context of your limited view and eisegesus of Jesus’ teachings rather than through the whole of Scripture.
You simply asserting that your point stands, doesn’t mean anything beyond you have judged your own words and decided that your own words makes sense to you.
I’m surprised you didn’t unilaterally change “King” because “King” makes you uncomfortable and the whole notion of a “Kingdom of YHWH” makes you feel icky.
In a world and history full of tyrants and kings and their oppressions and abuses of power and their damning hedonism, "king" is not a great metaphor for a perfectly loving, perfectly just Parent God. You may be fine with it. I think there are other words/terms that are a more apt fit.
In a world and history where religious humans have appealed to "divine rights" of kings and defended the abuses and oppression of kings, the term is not a great fit for the best of our faith traditions.
In a world and history where men have often created and enforced their "male superiority" with cruel abuses, "king" is likewise not the best descriptor or metaphor.
IF the realm of God ("kingdom," if you prefer for yourself) is a realm of love, grace, perfect justice and welcome (as I believe it to be and I think the Bible clearly teaches about it);
IF God is genderless (as, of course, God is without gender, without penis, without toxic masculinity) and there is a real tradition in our world of toxic, abusive and oppressive masculinity;
And IF God doesn't insist that we refer to the Beloved Community of God with any specific English terms/words (and of course, God doesn't, because God's not a jackass);
Then why NOT use better metaphors, more apt language, more grace-full, welcoming, loving language?
I'm guessing (you tell me) you don't think it's WRONG to refer to the Beloved Community as that, or as Realm of God or The Great Family of God or any other similar metaphor/term, is that right?
Is it just the case that you prefer "king" and "kingdom..."? If so, I encourage you to use that and I will use what I consider to be more apt, more wonderful language.
The great thing about human language and human communication is that it's adaptable, always evolving, always open to change and with the potential for great poetry and imagery.
11 paragraphs of Dan explaining why he is better qualified to determine what word is used to describe the Kingdom of YHWH than Jesus or the rest of the authors of Scripture.
I can’t take that drivel seriously enough to waste any more time on it.
The problem with religionists and Pharisees has always been that they imagine they can capture an almighty God, inside a little book and inside a little set of rules found within that book that THEY'RE going to tell you how to understand. But an almighty all-powerful God will not be bound by their little imaginations.
This is why religionists have often been charged reasonably with bibliodolatry.
God is so much bigger than your personal interpretations of one set of books. Let God be God.
I personally, could care less what you do or how you refer to YHWH, as long as you don't demand that others follow your path or insist that your path is correct.
You can bastardize Scripture to your little hearts content if you want. I'd prefer it if you'd stop pretending as if your paraphrases and edits are actual quotes of Scripture, but beyond that feel free to play your little semantic games if it makes you feel all tingly inside.
I find your ignorance about the Pharisees and Jesus interesting. Because Jesus commended the Pharisees for their holiness and told His followers that they should emulate the Pharisees in their pursuit of Holiness. So, right there you are at odds with Jesus to some degree. Jesus problem with the Pharisees (and the rest of the Jewish religious leadership) was their hypocrisy. He's quite clear that they are hypocrites and that their hypocrisy is the problem. Yet nowhere did Jesus fault their righteousness.
Maybe your hunches about the Pharisees are a little one dimensional.
What's strange is that (for example) you insist that everything absolutely must be filtered through "Jesus' teachings", then you set arbitrary limits on what constitute "Jesus' teachings". You insist that "poor" can only and exclusively mean "materially poor", while I (and others Like the author of Luke) allow for the possibility that one can be "poor" in other ways. I allow for a God who Created everything that exists, out of nothing (Which aligns with the best current scientific conclusion), while you shilly shally around and hem and haw about some vague "creating" of something. That you somehow think you can shove me in the little box that you've created out of your prejudices and biases, is really pretty hilarious.
“Trump Pulled in at Least $2 Billion After Returning to the White House The release of a mandatory financial disclosure for 2025 shows that the Trump family’s holdings, particularly the president’s crypto businesses, were stunningly lucrative.“
"I personally, could care less what you do or how you refer to YHWH, as long as you don't demand that others follow your path or insist that your path is correct."
And as anyone can plainly see and you should admit if you're going to be honest, I've never said the first thing about you using the word "Father" to refer to God. That's entirely up to you. I've never condemned it nor told you not to use it. Not one time. Do you admit that reality and recognize it as true and sure?
On the flipside you regularly bring up me using the realm of God as if you have a problem with it so maybe you do have a problem with me using such terms. For instance...
"You can bastardize Scripture to your little hearts content if you want."
You appear to be saying you think I'm bastardizing scripture simply because I don't want to jump through your little bitty hoops in your little bitty world and the little bitty sets of opinions about the Bible that you're trying to contain an almighty God within. You sound pretty upset.
Is that what you're saying? Do you think those of us who refer to the realm of God or the Beloved Community or Mother God are somehow bastardizing Scripture? Do you suspect that God is offended? If so why?
"What's strange is that (for example) you insist that everything absolutely must be filtered through "Jesus' teachings",..."
But I don't.
Craig...
...then you set arbitrary limits on what constitute "Jesus' teachings"."
But I don't.
Craig...
"You insist that "poor" can only and exclusively mean "materially poor",
But I don't.
Craig...
"while I (and others Like the author of Luke) allow for the possibility that one can be "poor" in other ways."
So do I.
You see, if you do such a piss-poor job of reading my words, where I clearly have said none of that, and not understanding that I haven't said any of that, then why do you place such confidence in your own human capacity to understand the Biblical teachings from humans thousands of years ago?
Go ahead. Take your time. Re-read all my words. You'll see I've never said any of that.
Of course the term "poor" could be understood to have multiple meanings in some of these texts. I'm just noting that in at least some of them the primary correct understanding is that Jesus is speaking literally of the poor, the physically poor and marginalized, because that's what the text says.
Yet years of you explaining all of the peculiarities of your hunches, don’t make this clear at all.
You couldn’t even make it through the comment without contradicting yourself.
But, by all means provide objective proof that “poor” in your cherry picked proof texts can only, exclusively, and without doubt mean just materially poor.
What in the name of all that is holy are you babbling about now? Did you not actually read what you copy/pasted?
I don’t have a problem with you substituting your 21st century progressive eisegetical framework on the text. That, doesn’t mean that I have to agree with your semantic gymnastics. Nor does it mean that I can’t point out that you substituted your feels good term for the Bublical text. Likewise when you put one of your bastardized paraphrases in quotes and treat the paraphrase like Scripture.
No, no I’m not at all. How something appears to you does not magically make the appearance reality.
Upset, hardly. Hilarity more accurately describes my response.
Now, in all seriousness, words mean things. In English, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, so knowing what those words are (in the original languages) and what they meant to both the speaker and hearer in the context of the time is important. Maybe that’s putting the text in too much of a box for you, Who knows since you play fast and loose with the English translation.
No. Possibly, but bastardize away if it makes you feel good, just don’t put quotation marks around one of your bastardized paraphrases and act like your hunch is Scripture. That’s all I’d ask is that you stop passing off your paraphrases as quotes or “Jesus taught”.
I suspect that YHWH takes Scripture seriously, but I suspect that He laughs at your semantic games.
40 comments:
How, pray tell, does that help the GOP? Being shamed by people choosing solidarity with the oppressed is an embarrassment for the GOP not for Democrats. I think y'all are so accustomed to being the elite and privileged, and beyond being questioned that y'all can't even see it when you're being taken down.
Dan
Of course, Jesus said it best..., what you did for the least of my family you did for me and what you did NOT do for the least of these... the poor, the oppressed, women, the abused, the marginalized..., you have not done for me.
Which side are you on,
Boys, which side are you on?
(In the words of another great woman, an ally to the poor and marginalized .)
.
Dan
Because what same person wants to vote for that nonsense.
One more example of Dan twisting Jesus' words for his own benefit.
What nonsense? What do you THINK was the purpose of the speaker and the crowd rallying around those attack phrases?
Have you ever seen the movie Spartacus and if so, did you understand it?
It's what Jesus literally said. What you do for the poor, what you do for the imprisoned, for the hungry, for the sick, for the marginalized... What you do for them you're doing for Jesus.
It's odd how I can take Jesus' words literally and you push back against it over and over again. Preferring, it would seem, your own version of a religion that has much less to do with Jesus' actual words and teachings. But then I imagine you just can't see that. More's the pity.
Dan
And in case you don't get what I was just saying, I'm pointing out the reality: how Jesus literally aligned himself with and identified with the poor and marginalized, just like this group of people that you are trying to mock and failing to understand that they have the upper moral and rational hand.
Dan
I totally get what the speaker was doing, and that he was doing it in front of an audience who was going to vote for Talarico regardless. He was stirring up the rabid, committed base.
The problem is that that same sort of crap doesn't play as well with the independent or uncommitted voters as it does for the base. Especially when GOP candidates plaster it all over the media. This kind of rhetoric is aimed at the 20-40% of hyper partisans who vote based only on the letter behind the name on the ballot. The other 60-80% of the electorate is going to react much differently to this, especially in a place like TX. Lots of devout Hispanic Catholics who might cross party lines, or sit this one out.
Only Dan would think aligning one's self with depraved and immoral people is righteous. But yeah...Dan's likely going to hell with them!
---Art
I absolutely take Jesus' words literally, in context, and within the entirety of Scripture. What I don't do, is treat your paraphrases as if they are Jesus' words.
"what you did for the least of my family"
It's interesting what Dan seems to have done here. By inserting the "my family", he opens the door to the fact that Jesus was not referring to every poor/naked/imprisoned/hungry person on earth. That Jesus was specifically referring to "His sheep", the ones that were "given" to Him by YHWH, the ones that hear His voice and respond, and not referring to everyone who ever existed. Or, this could be Dan slipping into universalism.
Jesus never promoted defending depraved immorality like Dan does. It was absolutely NOT a teaching of Jesus, nor did He ever say whatever you did NOT do to enable Dan's "beloved community" of sexual perverts and abortionists, you did to Me.
Someday Dan will actually have to "seriously and prayerfully" study Scripture instead of just trying to convince us he has.
Indeed. When one us rallying pervs and their enablers, perverts like Dan will respond positively.
---Art
Jesus aligned Himself with all sorts of people who were not in your pet demographic groups. Jesus closets disciples were fishermen, tax collectors, and ordinary Jews, not poor, hungry, or in prison. Paul, who Jesus aligned with, was a tent maker and a Pharisee. Nicodemus, was a Pharisee and tax collector. Jesus aligned with a Roman Centurion and at least one hooker. But let's ignore that in favor of one proof text from a parable. Do you take the "King" language as woodenly literal as the "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’? How about the “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”, woodenly literal or not?
What Jesus expects us to do for the depraved perverts of Dan's "beloved community" is to lead them to Jesus, not to a marxist liberation theology which exploits the Words of Jesus to legitimize their chosen immorality. What Jesus expects us to do for the spiritually poor, those imprisoned by their sin nature's, those hungry for God's Truth is not what Dan corrupts such encouragement to be.
---Art
This dude in the video is, like Dan, aligning himself with actual and factual sexual deviants...those who are in conscious rebellion against God and His Will, and somehow, Dan expects that we should be ashamed we won't join them on their Highway to Hell. Jesus NEVER aligned Himself with such people, but instead sought to bring them out of their spiritual poverty and enslavement to sin. Dan prefers to stay there and wallow. He's made his choice. I choose God.
---Art
Craig...
"That Jesus was specifically referring to "His sheep", the ones that were "given" to Him by YHWH, the ones that hear His voice and respond"
Well yeah if you are a believer in your particular human tradition where a god picks and chooses this person but not that person in their own crazy, careless, helter-skelter, godless manner. Fortunately, we need not necessarily affirm that kind of god that you have in your human traditions. And keeping in mind the text does not demand that human interpretation. That's something you're reading into it.
But it explains a lot about why you don't understand and why you interpret the Bible in such weird ways that end up dismissing Jesus' teachings, where you think you're following them. More's the pity.
I used "my family" instead of "least of my brothers" because Jesus was not talking just about males. I was being more inclusive, following closer to what Jesus was actually saying. You don't think he was talking about just "the brethren," do you?
And see there? you're focusing on brother rather than the least of these, missing the rather clear point.
Dan
At that point in Matthew, especially, it could probably be argued that by "brothers and sisters" that Jesus was referring primarily to, if not only, to the Jews.
I'm literally referring directly to Jesus' words where He is speaking about His followers. Noting else. Maybe you don't take those words quite so literally huh?
What specific "teachings of Jesus" have I "dismissed"?
Well, given that every translation I've seen says "brothers and sisters", who knows what you're talking about. Although it's interesting that you decided all on your own that (if your translation only says "brothers" that you knew better than anyone else what Jesus really meant and just made the change.
I'm not just focusing on "brother". I am pointing out that you tend to be very flexible in how you paraphrase Jesus' words and manipulate your paraphrases willy nilly to align with your preconceptions. All while passing your paraphrases off as quotes.
Oh, and on your proof texting snippets from a parable out of context.
Re, brothers and sisters, clearly I was thinking about the King James version. ...
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
My point stands though, you are saying that you believe Jesus is just speaking of a very specific subset of followers or even just Jewish followers. I do not think the text or reason justify that clannish view. It is a failure to understand Jesus' words in the context of Jesus' teachings.
As we see here you all are all about limiting while we're all about widening the circle.., widening the inclusion and grace, up against y'all limiting it. A deeply grievous and slanderous take on Jesus' teachings.
And also an irrational abuse of the notion of grace.
My point stands. Just as with the slaves and the oppressed all shouting out, "I am Spartacus,.." these people are taking the stand of the poor and oppressed up against the oppressors and the powerful. You've made your choice as to which side you're on. I pray that grace finds you.
You think this is a winning issue because in your clannish little circles, that is the common view. But I do not believe most of the world or the U.S. is as graceless as your circles are. I think it's a great failure to assume that people will find this Kinda video problematic just because you all do.
Dan
Nothing whatsoever in what you flippantly and gracelessly dismiss as our " particular human tradition" (in lieu of a legitimate alternative understanding of what's commonly known and understood as "Christianity ") indicates anything akin to a "crazy, careless, helter-skelter, 'godless' manner of separating sheep and goats. You've simply chosen to regard the goats of your "beloved community" of sexual deviants as sheep. How dare God decide who will or won't be a part of HIS "beloved community" without clearing it with almighty Dan!
But of course, Dan...no Christian he...knows better than God and chooses instead a god of his own making, appropriating the things of God...including His Only Begotten Son and select snippets of His teachings...in order to posture as a Christian.
I hope he loves it hot!
---Art
Craig...
"I'm literally referring directly to Jesus' words where He is speaking about His followers."
Where does Jesus say he is speaking to/about his followers? He is speaking to "all the nations," according to the literal text. And then he addresses the righteous and the unrighteous, as defined by their actions in the story.
Jesus...
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
The only ones he addresses as his brothers and sisters are " the least of these..." the poor and marginalized.
Dan
Just like you did with something I said the other day, you copy/paste something then you lie about what you just copy/pasted. You put “all the nations” in quotes as if Jesus ad said that, then copy/paste what He actually said. But for someone who is arrogant enough to change Jesus’ recorded words to something more inclusive and more like what Jesus really meant, this is clearly no big deal.
I’m surprised you didn’t unilaterally change “King” because “King” makes you uncomfortable and the whole notion of a “Kingdom of YHWH” makes you feel icky.
Sigh.
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne.
All the nations
will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats."
It is what Jesus said EARLIER in the parable leading up to the quote I shared.
I repeat, Where does Jesus say he is speaking to/about his followers?
Dan
Nice excuse. It’s not like “brethren” isn’t used to include men and women.
I believe that Matthew is written specifically to a Jewish audience and focuses on the Jewishness of Jesus. Further, Jesus Himself was very clear until the end of Matthew that the Gospel was to be intentionally spread beyond Israel. It goes back to the role of Israel in Salvation and the whole “save His people…” among other things. Obviously salvation beyond Israel was part of the plan, but not at the time Matthew covers.
I suspect that your problem is that you only look at the context of your limited view and eisegesus of Jesus’ teachings rather than through the whole of Scripture.
You simply asserting that your point stands, doesn’t mean anything beyond you have judged your own words and decided that your own words makes sense to you.
Craig:
I’m surprised you didn’t unilaterally change “King” because “King” makes you uncomfortable and the whole notion of a “Kingdom of YHWH” makes you feel icky.
In a world and history full of tyrants and kings and their oppressions and abuses of power and their damning hedonism, "king" is not a great metaphor for a perfectly loving, perfectly just Parent God. You may be fine with it. I think there are other words/terms that are a more apt fit.
In a world and history where religious humans have appealed to "divine rights" of kings and defended the abuses and oppression of kings, the term is not a great fit for the best of our faith traditions.
In a world and history where men have often created and enforced their "male superiority" with cruel abuses, "king" is likewise not the best descriptor or metaphor.
IF the realm of God ("kingdom," if you prefer for yourself) is a realm of love, grace, perfect justice and welcome (as I believe it to be and I think the Bible clearly teaches about it);
IF God is genderless (as, of course, God is without gender, without penis, without toxic masculinity) and there is a real tradition in our world of toxic, abusive and oppressive masculinity;
And IF God doesn't insist that we refer to the Beloved Community of God with any specific English terms/words (and of course, God doesn't, because God's not a jackass);
Then why NOT use better metaphors, more apt language, more grace-full, welcoming, loving language?
I'm guessing (you tell me) you don't think it's WRONG to refer to the Beloved Community as that, or as Realm of God or The Great Family of God or any other similar metaphor/term, is that right?
Is it just the case that you prefer "king" and "kingdom..."? If so, I encourage you to use that and I will use what I consider to be more apt, more wonderful language.
The great thing about human language and human communication is that it's adaptable, always evolving, always open to change and with the potential for great poetry and imagery.
Even if humans aren't.
No time now to respond to this, but I’ll deal with it.
11 paragraphs of Dan explaining why he is better qualified to determine what word is used to describe the Kingdom of YHWH than Jesus or the rest of the authors of Scripture.
I can’t take that drivel seriously enough to waste any more time on it.
The problem with religionists and Pharisees has always been that they imagine they can capture an almighty God, inside a little book and inside a little set of rules found within that book that THEY'RE going to tell you how to understand. But an almighty all-powerful God will not be bound by their little imaginations.
This is why religionists have often been charged reasonably with bibliodolatry.
God is so much bigger than your personal interpretations of one set of books. Let God be God.
Dan
I guess there are some fringe types out there like that. But I fail to see the relevance of this drivel in this context.
Passive aggressive much?
I’m not the one limiting YHWH.
So you're cool if I refer to God our Mother? You're cool if I prefer to use the realm of God or beloved community over the kingdom of God?
Good.
Also the Pharisees probably didn't think they were limiting God either or trying to cage God in. Nonetheless...
Dan
I personally, could care less what you do or how you refer to YHWH, as long as you don't demand that others follow your path or insist that your path is correct.
You can bastardize Scripture to your little hearts content if you want. I'd prefer it if you'd stop pretending as if your paraphrases and edits are actual quotes of Scripture, but beyond that feel free to play your little semantic games if it makes you feel all tingly inside.
I find your ignorance about the Pharisees and Jesus interesting. Because Jesus commended the Pharisees for their holiness and told His followers that they should emulate the Pharisees in their pursuit of Holiness. So, right there you are at odds with Jesus to some degree. Jesus problem with the Pharisees (and the rest of the Jewish religious leadership) was their hypocrisy. He's quite clear that they are hypocrites and that their hypocrisy is the problem. Yet nowhere did Jesus fault their righteousness.
Maybe your hunches about the Pharisees are a little one dimensional.
What's strange is that (for example) you insist that everything absolutely must be filtered through "Jesus' teachings", then you set arbitrary limits on what constitute "Jesus' teachings". You insist that "poor" can only and exclusively mean "materially poor", while I (and others Like the author of Luke) allow for the possibility that one can be "poor" in other ways. I allow for a God who Created everything that exists, out of nothing (Which aligns with the best current scientific conclusion), while you shilly shally around and hem and haw about some vague "creating" of something. That you somehow think you can shove me in the little box that you've created out of your prejudices and biases, is really pretty hilarious.
“Trump Pulled in at Least $2 Billion After Returning to the White House
The release of a mandatory financial disclosure for 2025 shows that the Trump family’s holdings, particularly the president’s crypto businesses, were stunningly lucrative.“
You’re a majorly sick hypocrite
Craig ...
"I personally, could care less what you do or how you refer to YHWH, as long as you don't demand that others follow your path or insist that your path is correct."
And as anyone can plainly see and you should admit if you're going to be honest, I've never said the first thing about you using the word "Father" to refer to God. That's entirely up to you. I've never condemned it nor told you not to use it. Not one time. Do you admit that reality and recognize it as true and sure?
On the flipside you regularly bring up me using the realm of God as if you have a problem with it so maybe you do have a problem with me using such terms. For instance...
"You can bastardize Scripture to your little hearts content if you want."
You appear to be saying you think I'm bastardizing scripture simply because I don't want to jump through your little bitty hoops in your little bitty world and the little bitty sets of opinions about the Bible that you're trying to contain an almighty God within. You sound pretty upset.
Is that what you're saying? Do you think those of us who refer to the realm of God or the Beloved Community or Mother God are somehow bastardizing Scripture? Do you suspect that God is offended? If so why?
Dan
Craig...
"What's strange is that (for example) you insist that everything absolutely must be filtered through "Jesus' teachings",..."
But I don't.
Craig...
...then you set arbitrary limits on what constitute "Jesus' teachings"."
But I don't.
Craig...
"You insist that "poor" can only and exclusively mean "materially poor",
But I don't.
Craig...
"while I (and others Like the author of Luke) allow for the possibility that one can be "poor" in other ways."
So do I.
You see, if you do such a piss-poor job of reading my words, where I clearly have said none of that, and not understanding that I haven't said any of that, then why do you place such confidence in your own human capacity to understand the Biblical teachings from humans thousands of years ago?
Go ahead. Take your time. Re-read all my words. You'll see I've never said any of that.
Of course the term "poor" could be understood to have multiple meanings in some of these texts. I'm just noting that in at least some of them the primary correct understanding is that Jesus is speaking literally of the poor, the physically poor and marginalized, because that's what the text says.
All means all.
Dan
Yet years of you explaining all of the peculiarities of your hunches, don’t make this clear at all.
You couldn’t even make it through the comment without contradicting yourself.
But, by all means provide objective proof that “poor” in your cherry picked proof texts can only, exclusively, and without doubt mean just materially poor.
What in the name of all that is holy are you babbling about now? Did you not actually read what you copy/pasted?
I don’t have a problem with you substituting your 21st century progressive eisegetical framework on the text. That, doesn’t mean that I have to agree with your semantic gymnastics. Nor does it mean that I can’t point out that you substituted your feels good term for the Bublical text. Likewise when you put one of your bastardized paraphrases in quotes and treat the paraphrase like Scripture.
No, no I’m not at all. How something appears to you does not magically make the appearance reality.
Upset, hardly. Hilarity more accurately describes my response.
Now, in all seriousness, words mean things. In English, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, so knowing what those words are (in the original languages) and what they meant to both the speaker and hearer in the context of the time is important. Maybe that’s putting the text in too much of a box for you, Who knows since you play fast and loose with the English translation.
No.
Possibly, but bastardize away if it makes you feel good, just don’t put quotation marks around one of your bastardized paraphrases and act like your hunch is Scripture. That’s all I’d ask is that you stop passing off your paraphrases as quotes or “Jesus taught”.
I suspect that YHWH takes Scripture seriously, but I suspect that He laughs at your semantic games.
Dan just lied about how he interprets Scripture to his liking.
Anon, ID yourself or these get deleted.
"Dan just lied about how he interprets Scripture to his liking"
---Art
Post a Comment