"Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them."
You have heard it said that the only "teachings of Jesus" that really count as "teachings" are those which took place in certain settings and under certain circumstances. This being when Jesus was "preaching a sermon". Which leaves us with the obvious problem of how to treat the majority of what Jesus was recorded as saying.
So, when we look at the beginning of the SOTM we are immediately confronted with the picture of Jesus teaching His disciples. It seems likely that this was more than the 12, but less than a huge crowd. As Jesus has a practice of retreating from the crowds, it seems possible (even likely) that Jesus was focused on His disciples, and not on the crowds. It seems unlikely that Jesus sat down to teach the crowds, although possible.
While this snapshot in interesting, and instructive, I raises a bigger question about Jesus' methods. Jesus was incarnate for a limited period of time in a specific geographic location surrounded by a specific ethnic/religious group which He targeted. Yet, it is clear that His goal and charge was to spread The Gospel to the entire world.
So, without minimizing the importance of Jesus' recorded words, what it His whole purpose was to pout His teachings into His disciples so that they were the ones who in Matthew 28:16-20 were actually commissioned to spread The Gospel beyond Israel? What if the important stuff happened when it was Just Jesus and His disciples? What if the public stuff was not the most important part of Jesus' ministry? Obviously, it was all important and part of a much larger narrative, but what if a significant part of Jesus' plan was about pouring into, teaching, and equipping those closest to Him because He knew that the worldwide spread of The Gospel was dependent upon the Holy Spirit working through His closest disciples?
Oh, and what if Jesus giving a sermon on a mountain was a direct reflection of Moses on Sinai?
57 comments:
That's a fine set of what ifs. What if Jesus DID preach the gospel to the crowds just as he said? What if, as we can see quite literally, Jesus never preached your human penal substitution atonement theory? See... that's not even a what if. That's just the reality of Jesus' teachings. Right?
Dan
Well, you’ve done a fine job of not actually dealing with them, answering the questions, and imposing your stock responses. Not that I’d expect anything different.
Craig...
"You have heard it said that the only "teachings of Jesus" that really count as "teachings" are those which took place in certain settings and under certain circumstances. This being when Jesus was "preaching a sermon""
What I have said, to be clear, is:
1. Jesus is our best and most clear representation of God. As followers of Jesus we should begin to try to understand God and the various texts within the Bible through the lens of the clear teachings of Jesus.
2. Jesus very clearly, literally said he'd come to preach good news. He was actively involved in preaching good news over and over. Jesus mentioned that he was there preaching good news to the people, the good news of the realm of God, the good news of the kingdom. He was there to preach good news.
3. Therefore we should be able to see in Jesus' teaching what he considered to be the good news for the poor and marginalized that he referred to regularly and literally.
With me so far? Do these points make sense to you and as far as they go?
That being said I have not suggested that any of Jesus' teachings or other teachings in the Bible don't count, right?
Dan
1. Yeah, because absolutely nothing else in Scripture gives us any hints about how to understand YHWH. Strangely enough, YHWH is only a bit player during Jesus’ ministry. But feel free to hold on to your personal, subjective hunch.
2. Yet, that’s not the only thing He said. While He did say that, He also was clear in sending His disciples and Paul to spread The Gospel beyond Israel.
3. Nice job of moving the goal posts.
They make sense in that they are written in English according to the standard rules of English grammar and such. Are they the only possible conclusions, no. Do they best fit with the entirety of Scripture, no. Are they pet hunches that you insist on repeating without proving, yes.
No, yet you’ve clearly elevated Jesus’ “preaching” over other examples of Jesus teaching His followers.
You state these bullet points as if they are somehow objectively True, yet I don’t recall proof. If, as I suspect, these are merely opinions you hold, then I see no reason to take them seriously.
If, as the text indicates, Jesus was primarily speaking to His disciples then perhaps this was actually a sermon in the sense of Jesus preaching to a large audience. Perhaps the problem lies with the person who named it the SOTM, for calling it something it wasn’t.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support you pondering some imponderables and what ifs. It's not a bad thing to do, as long as we don't confuse a What If? with a given fact. Looking both at Matthew's rendering and at the complementary passage in Luke (the Sermon on the Plain), we see:
He went down with them and stood on a level place.
A large crowd of his disciples was there and
a great number of people from all over Judea,
from Jerusalem, and
from the coastal region around Tyre and Sidon,
who had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases.
Those troubled by impure spirits were cured, and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all.
Looking at his disciples, he said:
“Blessed are you who are poor..."
And the SOTM in Matthew ends with "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching"
As to your theory that Jesus was primarily teaching to his disciples rather than "the crowds," I'd say both things are clearly true. He WAS preaching to the crowds of people there AND he was preaching to his disciples (not just The Twelve). He was preaching words for the benefit of the poor and marginalized and for the benefit of the Pharisees and legalists. He was preaching in the context of and therefore, somewhat to the Roman oppressors and their allies. I'd say that the texts of Jesus make all this clear, so we don't even have to wonder "What if..." The answer is, Yes, all of the above.
I wonder why you're wondering about whether referring to it as a sermon is problematic? It's a teaching, a collection of teachings, a sermon, a set of lessons. It was quite literally a public discourse, what some might call a sermon today.
Craig:
it seems possible (even likely) that Jesus was focused on His disciples, and not on the crowds.
I'd say that the texts always make it clear that he was teaching to his disciples, yes, but to the greater "crowd" in the context of that specific day and time. He was speaking to the Roman oppressors AND to the poor and oppressed by the Romans (and their Jewish allies). He had specifically, literally came to preach "good news to the poor" and marginalized, whether or not they were his disciples/followers. He had a WHOLE lot to say to the Pharisees/religionists of his day, even if he was addressing his message to the "followers."
And I will note that I believe scholars would say that Jesus was followed by a good many people, not all of whom were his disciples. There were the curious, the longing, the hurting, the oppressed, the women, etc... people who may or may not have risen to the level of "disciple," (NOT that this was ever defined in any specific way) and we see many followers run for cover when the oppressors oppressed. Heck, we even see some of the disciples doing this.
I just don't think the text can justify the theory that Jesus was preaching "primarily" to his disciples and, of course, Jesus never told us. I get why you might think a case can be made, I just don't think that it's that strong of a case. A What if? Sure, that's an okay question.
yet you’ve clearly elevated Jesus’ “preaching” over other examples of Jesus teaching His followers.
Of course, I haven't, you've no doubt misunderstood. If I had to guess, I'd guess you're thinking of when I pointed out that Jesus literally is said to have preached good news to the poor and others, that this "good news" would have actually been preached/taught/presented to groups of people, as opposed to a quiet discussion with a dozen or so people. I don't think a private conversation rises to the level of preaching.
From some conservative website:
The word “preach” comes from the Greek word kerusso, which means to proclaim, to declare, to announce, or to herald a message. It was the message proclaimed by the kerux, who was the official spokesman or herald of a king. Because the kerux was the appointed, official representative of the king or government, his specific job was to announce with a clear and unquestionable voice the desires, dictates, orders, recent events, news, policy changes, or message that the king or government wished to express to the people.
Noting the distinction between a public proclamation and a private discussion is not to denigrate (at all!!) the private discussion. It's just noting the different terms and their usage. I'm not "elevating" his sermons over his private discussions/teachings, just noting the different usages and purposes.
PSA is the Gospel.
https://www.9marks.org/article/did-jesus-affirm-penal-substitutionary-atonement/
Craig, responding to my suggestion of interpreting the whole of the Bible through the words of Jesus, as God's clearest representation of God and God's Way, said:
1. Yeah, because absolutely nothing else in Scripture gives us any hints about how to understand YHWH. Strangely enough, YHWH is only a bit player during Jesus’ ministry. But feel free to hold on to your personal, subjective hunch.
1. I didn't say we can't learn anything from other places in Scripture. I am saying, "Look at Jesus' teachings and try to learn from them... and then, when you're reading the rest of the sacred text (or other writings/ideas) filter them through the clear teachings of Jesus.
2. This and the corollaries - Interpret the obscure and hard-to-understand through the clear AND let scripture interpret scripture - are common, basic biblical studies guidelines... the sort I was raised with in my conservative upbringing. Like you see here:
"Jesus is the lens through which the Bible’s meaning is most clearly seen."
https://bicus.org/2021/10/reading-the-bible-through-a-jesus-lens/
https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/how-to-read-the-bible-part-3-the-bibles-center-is-jesus-christ/
https://www.growingchristians.org/hermeneutics/principle-6
In other words, it's not something I made up, it's what I was taught in conservative world and something I've held on to because it's rational IF you're going to be a follower of Jesus.
And reading through the lens of Jesus is NOT to say we're dismissing other passages, just accepting Jesus as our guidepost and God and clearest expression of the Way of God.
Clearly, if you say something, can scrape up a link to something, or were taught something, then it must be beyond question.
I do appreciate the goal post move.
Well given your hermeneutical gymnastics, you could define everything as a sermon/preaching which seems to undercut your earlier claims.
According to the text, can say for sure that Jesus was not teaching His disciples while other people listened in?
Well given your hermeneutical gymnastics, you could define everything as a sermon/preaching which seems to undercut your earlier claims.
According to the text, can say for sure that Jesus was not teaching His disciples while other people listened in?
sigh. So, you DON'T think that we, as followers of Jesus, should interpret Genesis or Revelation or the Psalms through the teachings and understandings expressed in the teachings of Jesus? You don't think that's a sound bit of bible study advice for followers of Jesus? Do you think it's actively bad advice?
Fine, whatever. Seems a weird hill to die upon, but whatever.
At this point Dan goes far beyond the immediate text and is imposing his hunches willy nilly.
At this point Dan goes far beyond the immediate text and is imposing his hunches willy nilly.
Craig:
According to the text, can say for sure that Jesus was not teaching His disciples while other people listened in?
That is an excellent example of a What If? What IF Jesus truly only meant it primarily for his immediate faithful disciples, regardless of others hearing it and hearing about it? MAYBE that was Jesus' intentions. One could certainly make that as a guess.
But not as a fact. It's nothing more than a What If?
Right?
Craig theorized vaguely, and with no support:
at this point Dan goes far beyond the immediate text and is imposing his hunches willy nilly.
JESUS SAID, "I have come to preach good news to the poor (and marginalized...)" in that text. No mention of "but ONLY the 'disciples...'" That's not a hunch, it's a readable, observable fact.
As to the SOTM/SOTP, the feedings of the thousands... Jesus clearly KNEW there were crowds there, listening. That's kind of the point of a crowd (a multitude, vast numbers of people...) - they're kind of hard to miss.
Jesus: "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples..." Matthew 23
Jesus: "When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness." Luke 22
"The Pharisees looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet." Matthew 21
It was no secret that the crowds, the poor, the sick, the marginalized, etc, etc were following and listening to the teachings of Jesus. That's not imposing my hunches, it's just reading the texts for what they say.
Now, you might say, "WHAT IF, when a text where Jesus is speaking to multitudes and his more regular disciples and Jesus says, 'he looked to his disciples...' WHAT IF he said it in a stage whisper, so only his disciples could hear him? THAT could be the case, right, right???" And that's a fine guess/hunch/what if. But it's not a proven thing if you take the text for just what it says. On the other hand, if you take the text for just what it says, clearly "the crowds" WERE hearing his teachings of Good news for the poor and marginalized. And they were pretty psyched up about that grace-approach gospel, as opposed to the legalistic drudgery of the pharisees.
What, specifically, are you imagining is a "hunch..."?
1. Not necessarily.
2. Especially not through your hunches about what Jesus really meant, and how to discern it.
3. No, I think that we should interpret Hebrew scripture as a 1st century Jew like Jesus and His disciples would have. Where Jesus quotes or directly references the Torah, we might want to be conversant in what He’s referring to.
Yes, I think imposing 21st century progressive theology on Jesus is a bad idea.
Marshal declared with zero support:
PSA is the Gospel.
And yet, the reality remains, Jesus never once preached a sermon about that later-developed human theory. Not one time. Observably. Period, and as an objective fact.
NOTE: That your 9marks source reads into the text the same things that you read into it, and which are literally not stated at all, that doesn't help you and it certainly doesn't prove it.
Eisegesis to prove a human theory is always a bad idea. And it's certainly not any kind of objective proof.
Craig:
I think imposing 21st century progressive theology on Jesus is a bad idea.
And yet, not nearly as bad as imposing 12th century human traditions on Jesus. HOW does that help anything?
And once again, it seems like a rather blasphemous and irrational hill to die on, to subjugate Jesus' actual teachings to your opinions about what Paul might have meant or your opinions about ancient mythic creation stories, etc but whatevs. For myself, as a follow of Jesus, the Christ, I take Jesus' actual words as primary revelations of Jesus and God's way. But you do you.
It's amazing that you have simply decided that you can apply the passage from Luke to the passage from Matthew and to (apparently combine them) to make a point far beyond the text itself.
"He was speaking to the..."
By all means please provide the proof of this claim.
"And I will note that I believe scholars would say that..."
Who cares what you "believe"? This is just a cheap cop out to pretend as if your unproven hunch is magically supported by some anonymous mystery "scholars".
Of course, lots of people "followed Jesus around", yet the text is clear that Jesus was speaking (primarily) to His disciples. It's literally how rabbis worked, they focused on teaching their disciples mostly in public places and that teaching was heard by others.
Again, "I don't think" is either compelling, proven, or supported by the text, therefore I don't care.
Your digression is interesting in that it almost perfectly describes the role of Jesus. Jesus was the Son of The King, who was sent by The King to announce what The King wanted to express.
What you've missed in your conflation of Luke and Matthew, is that the message of The King was spread beyond the small geographical region where Jesus was, by Jesus' disciples and followers.
Given that reality, if follows that Jesus was equipping His disciples (primarily) for their role in spreading The Gospel, beyond Jerusalem, and Judea.
"NOTE: That your 9marks source reads into the text the same things that you read into it"
NOTE: You say this crap in every instance of where Scripture says what you don't want it to say. Like us, the 9marks source points to those places where Jesus speaks of his purpose for having been born to us. Because Jesus doesn't say it in the manner you demand He must, nor in the context you demand He must (on the Mount or in the midst of a large throng of people), you dismiss His clearly spoken words altogether. You insist that because He read from Isaiah, saying He came to proclaim "Good News" to those you insist are only the materially poor and outcast from society (He did not), while ignoring that the "Good News" is that His sacrifice on the cross will tear the veil which separates us from God...will redeem us so that we are worthy to be in God's eternal presence...that it means it is WE who are injecting "human traditions/hunches/opinions" into the text, when in fact you are NOT AT ALL taking Jesus's actual words seriously or in any way honestly or rationally.
Well, if one wishes to read into the text that which is not explicit in the text, one can imagine all sorts of "what if" situation. I'm looking at what the text says, not going beyond that.
Now, going back to your "preach" digression, it could be argued from the text that Jesus was preparing His disciples to fulfill the role of the kerux precisely because "Because the kerux was the appointed, official representative of the king or government, his specific job was to announce with a clear and unquestionable voice the desires, dictates, orders, recent events, news, policy changes, or message that the king or government wished to express to the people.".
1. Clearly His disciples were more than the 12.
2. Nothing about this precludes others from overhearing or even being involved in what Jesus was teaching His disciples.
I'm merely pointing out that (Unlike other examples) the SOTM does not seem to be a public speech to a large crowd of people as much as a time of teaching directed to His disciples.
So, Dan's proof that he's not going beyond the text in question is to cite texts beyond the text in question.
To point out that Jesus (in some general way) said that He came to "preach Good News...", does not validate that Jesus was doing so in the specific instance of the SOTM.
Again, your conflation of multiple different situations in an attempt to make a claim about one specific event, seems desperate and problematic. I'm asking specific questions about a specific event, and your response is "But look at all of these other different events and some vague general stuff".
You make a huge leap from "crowds were following Jesus around", to "Jesus was intentionally and specifically speaking to the "crowds" in every circumstance.
I'm not denying, and have acknowledged, that there were likely people listening to Jesus' teaching His disciples in the SOTM. I'm merely pointing out what the text says about who Jesus was speaking to, not arguing that others might have overheard Him teaching His disciples.
That "the crowds were" or might have been "hearing" Jesus speak to His disciples, is not proof that Jesus was specifically addressing the "crowds".
That's just a hunch.
It's hilarious when you contradict yourself like this.
Marshall declared with zero support", then you go on to cite the "support" Marshall offered.
"Eisegesis to prove a human theory is always a bad idea. And it's certainly not any kind of objective proof."
Yet, you engage in this regularly.
This is what happens when you divorce Jesus from the Jewish Scriptures.
What is interesting is that, in a sense, you are correct. Imposing anything on Scripture that doesn't exist in Scripture is a problem. Strangely enough your contention is that you imposing your 21st century progressive (subjective, individual) hunches on Scripture is somehow acceptable because someone in the past did something.
But thanks for acknowledging that you impose your 21st century progressive biases on Scripture.
Strange, it doesn't seem to be a problem for you to lie about what you're claiming I've done, while engaging in exactly the actions you decry.
No, I take Jesus ministry as an integral part of YHWH's redemptive narrative that flows throughout Scripture. I don't divide what we learn about YHWH throughout Scripture, from Jesus. Just like I don't divide Jesus from YHWH. When, in the SOTM, Jesus quotes or directly references specific commandments from the Law, it leads me to what Jesus was referencing and what those references tell us about YHWH.
But you do you.
"Jesus is our best and most clear representation of God"
Dan 6/17 @2:10 PM
"Jesus, as God's clearest representation of God and God's Way"
Dan 6/17 @5:48 PM
Note the subtle difference in the claim being made.
I feel like I should note something. This post/thread is related to my Q&A post from last week. Had Dan continued to answer the simple direct questions I was asking, there would have been some more foundation laid for further discussions. Alas, Dan chose not to go along with the progression of questions.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’ [Exodus
20:14]. And I say to you that anyone who looks at a wife (γυναῖκα; gunaīka) to covet
(ἐπιθυμῆσαι, epithumēsai) her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
(Matthew 5:28)
b.) “You shall not covet (ἐπιθυμήσεις, epithumēseis) your neighbor’s wife
(γυναῖκα; gunaīka).” (Exodus 20:17 LXX)
I guess one could believe that it is coincidence that Jesus used the specific language of The Law when He was clarifying His position on adultery, but somehow I don't think so.
I'll note the obvious here. Dan is, again, doing exactly what he complains about in his criticism. He's essentially arguing that what he reads into the text (as he acknowledges in his affirmation of reading his 21st century liberal bias as superior) is somehow better than what he believes someone else "read into the text". He can't prove that anyone actually "read into the text" but he asserts it as if it is factual anyway.
You are correct that Dan's acts as if his various mantras somehow carry some sort of magical power that makes them True because Dan offered them as an incantation.
He's essentially arguing that what he reads into the text (as he acknowledges in his affirmation of reading his 21st century liberal bias as superior) is somehow better than what he believes someone else "read into the text".
Nope. Or at least not totally. It IS often true that on points we can't prove (neither of us), my position is more obviously reasonable when considered from a point of love and justice. But in THIS case, all I'm doing is merely noting the observable reality that Jesus literally does not preach anything about the 12th century human theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement theories, not anywhere in his sermons to the people to whom he preached. AND, only in TWO complete phrases does Jesus even use words that COULD be seen as perhaps somehow touching on theories later espoused as PSA.
I'm noting the reality that Jesus repeatedly says he's come to preach good news of God's realm, and that, specifically to the poor and marginalized, and yet, in NONE of those sermons is he proposing anything like PSAT. It's just objectively, observably not there in any kind of good faith reading. At the most, one could pose some of your imponderables (but WHAT IF Jesus was sort of suggesting something like a PSAT?) that could be discussed as a hypothetical, what if, but it's just observably NOT in the text itself.
In noting observable reality, I'm just noting observable reality, objectively demonstrated by any good faith reading of the text at face value.
That has nothing to do with "my reading" of the text, it's either there or not there in Jesus' sermons and, as anyone can see, it's literally just not there. That's not a matter of opinion, it's just not there, objectively so. IF it were, you could point to the teachings/sermons where it literally shows up. That, as opposed to offering these human theories about "but maybe THAT verse means THIS other thing that isn't said..."
It's the difference between what's literally there and what's not literally there.
"Nope. Or at least not totally."
These examples of refuting himself usually don't show up quite this close together.
" my position is more obviously reasonable when considered from a point of love and justice."
1. This is clearly a claim of fact without even an attempt at proof.
2. Well, "reasonable" is a subjective term defined by Dan in whatever way casts him in the most positive light.
3. Well, "love" is a subjective term defined by Dan in whatever way casts him in the most positive light.
4. Well, "justice" is a subjective term defined by Dan in whatever way casts him in the most positive light.
In short, Dan is claiming to be right because he thinks he is.
"Jesus literally does not preach anything about the 12th century human theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement"
Yet He, as a first century Jew, was immersed in a system (established by YHWH) which was intimately familiar with the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb as an atonement for sin. He was referred to in exactly those terms. He spoke about His fulfilling that role. That He didn't "preach" about it, doesn't mean the He was silent. That He doesn't use a specific verbal formulation which was compiled later, also doesn't mean that He didn't address the subject, nor that the later formulation is completely wrong.
Again, when you arbitrarily limit this to what Jesus "preached" in His "sermons", you exclude so much.
Of course, they you read into what "good news" Jesus was preaching and the it was primarily/only for certain demographic groups, it goes from "reading the text at face value" into imposing your 21st century progressive theology on the text.
As you've demonstrated at the Q&A post, asking questions to determine things is pointless. So I won't bother.
Craig:
1. This is clearly a claim of fact without even an attempt at proof.
IT'S NOT THERE. That IS literal proof. When someone notes the complete and total literal absence of something and says, "In THAT book, THAT idea does not show up" IS objective proof.
Now, IF you imagine that somewhere hidden in the texts of Jesus' words, there IS a line I missed where Jesus says something like, "And the way to be saved is to have a perfect offering sacrificed for you, taking your punishment for your sin - which sin REQUIRES that sort of holy blood sacrifice - ...you know, PSA theory..." then all you have to do is post that line (those lines). That you all never have is additional testimony that it's not there, because IF you could, you would have by now.
Saying, "here are some words from Jesus that I personally (and people like me) think MEANS PSA," is not a quote from Jesus. It's a quote from you. Or your human allies at 9marks. But it's NOT a quote from Jesus saying that.
That's how proof works.
It's literally not there and certainly not there in any of Jesus' sermons. Not one time. Prove me wrong.
Craig:
when you arbitrarily limit this to what Jesus "preached" in His "sermons", you exclude so much.
Jesus literally said, "I came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized... I came to preach the good news of the realm of God..." Then JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY is saying, in that text, that he preached the good news in his sermons and teachings to the people (specifically, the poor and marginalized, often). Given that, it's not an arbitrary expectation to say, "Okay, where did Jesus preach PSA?" It's a legitimate textual assumption.
Now, someone can say WHAT IF? and suggest, "What IF Jesus DID preach PSA to the poor and marginalized, BUT the gospel writers never one time recorded those particular sermons/teachings?" ... that's a hypothetical that one could raise and an imponderable unknown that can't be proven. It IS at least a question that COULD be raised.
But then, the obvious question is, WHY?
WHY, if Jesus was coming to preach PSA while he was here on earth to the poor and marginalized as he literally said he was going to do, WHY would the disciples not have recorded that even one time?
Do you all understand how adult conversation happens? Come, now, gentlemen. Be reasonable.
Jesus literally said, "I came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized... "
1. That's not exactly what He said, that's you reading into what He said.
2. Strangely enough, that is not the only thing Jesus said.
3. Yet despite #2, you are obsessed with that one thing.
"I came to preach the good news of the realm of God..." "
Where exactly can this quote be found?
Again, your arbitrary exclusion of things that Jesus did not "preach", is all I need to see from you.
Well, because the Gospel that Jesus brought and His finished work of atonement, IS Good News for EVERYONE (which includes the "poor and marginalized").
The Gospel authors did record various examples of Jesus speaking about His atoning sacrifice. They just don't fit your arbitrary "preaching" limitation.
Craig theorized, without support:
He, as a first century Jew, was immersed in a system (established by YHWH) which was intimately familiar with the sacrifice of an unblemished lamb as an atonement for sin.
He was certainly familiar with the SYMBOLISM of the notion of blood sacrifices, as such things were common in the pagan religions around the area as well as in Judaism. But the SYMBOL does not mean the reality, NOR does it mean that humans NEED a blood sacrifice before forgiveness can happen, nor that the god in question NEEDS a blood sacrifice before that god is empowered with the capacity for forgiveness.
That there were traditions in the pagan and Hebrew world with many symbols, smoke, altars, and runes does not mean that those symbols were an accepted reality. Indeed, even within the Hebrew tradition, it was recognized that the blood sacrifices were a symbol, not the reality.
A reminder that in Matthew 9, Jesus literally says,
"But go and learn what this means:
‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’
For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”"
He was, of course, quoting the prophet Hosea, which records God as saying:
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
[As an aside: HERE is a perfect example of understanding the whole of the bible by reading through the lens of what Jesus clarifies for us.]
Hosea was, in turn, echoing something found in 1 Samuel:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
The blood sacrifice is a SYMBOL, naught else, a symbol for laying out/down one's life in LOVE as God loves, loving God and one another (thereby, loving God, as the ancient writers repeatedly taught us).
In short, the literal blood of a dead animal (or dead god-man) NEVER brought forgiveness. Forgiveness comes through love.
And thus, when we find verses like this one in Hebrews:
According to the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
We can be sure that "the shedding of blood" is a METAPHOR, not a literal requirement such that no one could be forgiven if there were no animal or innocent human slaughtered.
THAT is the answer of the worst of paganism (with apologies to modern pagans!), not of reason or of God or Jesus.
HOW could "forgiveness" be "purchased" by shedding blood? It's an irrational and rather insane theory if you're trying to take it literally. Have you EVER found yourself empowered to forgive someone ONLY after some ritualistic slaying of innocents? NO! Of course, not. It's a gruesome, irrational and unholy thought!
No, we forgive our children, our parents, our neighbors, our enemies WHEN we find it possible to love them. If my toddler were to poop on the floor the grossest, runniest poop possible, I might be tempted to be outraged at that affront on my property/floor... but no, I LOVE them and it's not even a question but that I simply forgive them out of that love, NOT some pagan slaughter of an innocent.
We sacrifice "blood, sweat and tears," WHEN, in love, we pour out our lives. The blood is but a symbol of that love, that covenant.
Do you disagree? Do you think it is somehow only possible to forgive someone with literal blood?
Uggh.
So, if Jesus ACTUALLY thought it was some kind of literal bloodslaughter sacrifice that effected forgiveness, then Jesus would have missed the whole point of, well, Jesus, and of God and God's beloved community. Jesus WAS aware of the symbolism of blood sacrifice "for sin," but nowhere espoused that as a literal theory.
Right?
I can't believe that you understand what "proof" actually entails. You making subjective, unproven, claims isn't proof it's hubris.
Of course, you haven't actually addressed my actual point #1, you're clearly arguing against something entirely different.
Perhaps your problem is that you're formulation ("the way to be saved is to have a perfect offering sacrificed for you, taking your punishment for your sin - which sin REQUIRES that sort of holy blood sacrifice -) isn't PSA it's a big % of The Law. I guess the fact that Jesus was an observant Jew (including participating in keeping The Law) gets throw out in your 21st century progressive bias. I guess that whole "Lamb of YHWH who takes away the sins of the world", also thrown out in Dan's personal hunch.
Strangely enough, you (once again) do what you (wrongly) bitch about us doing. ""here are some words from Jesus that I personally (and people like me) think MEANS" that the gospel is primarily/only for the "poor/marginalized".
That you have to invent, combine, and conflate unrelated scripture to put words in Jesus' mouth, makes your whining even more amusing.
Coming from someone who clearly has problems proving his own claims, it's absolutely hilarious to see you bitching about something you don't expect from yourself.
Dan:
Jesus literally said, "I came to preach good news to the poor and marginalized... "
1. That's not exactly what He said, that's you reading into what He said.
No, it is exactly what he said. And here, I will remind you of your endless false complaints that I'm looking for the literal words (such as PSA or "sin nature") and that I'm looking at the literal IDEA, even if I sum up it up in words that aren't the literal quote.
I remind you:
The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
God 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.”
That IS Jesus saying he'd come to preach good news to the poor and marginalized. That I sum up "the blind, the captive, the oppressed" as "marginalized" does not change the reality that he said he came to proclaim good news to the poor and marginalized.
And EVEN IF, somehow, after all these years and just obvious-ness, you STILL don't know that I use "and marginalized" to accurately summarize "the poor, the widowed, the orphans, the immigrants, the oppressed, etc, etc" that Jesus, the prophets and other biblical texts speak of, you can always ask for clarification.
But you know what I mean and yes, Jesus DID preach/say that exactly and it's NOT "reading into" his words anything other than just what the text says.
Do you truly NOT understand all those verses to be speaking of good news for the poor and marginalized? Well, if so, that's on you. It's a common recognition throughout even traditional Christian traditions.
"Craig theorized, without support:"
One more of Dan's magical incantations that he somehow thinks makes what follows magically more viable.
Dan thinks that somehow he can magically make the pronouncement that Jesus was NOT a first century Jew, who was observant of the Law as established in The Torah.
"
He was certainly familiar with the SYMBOLISM of the notion of blood sacrifices, as such things were common in the pagan religions around the area as well as in Judaism. But the SYMBOL does not mean the reality, NOR does it mean that humans NEED a blood sacrifice before forgiveness can happen, nor that the god in question NEEDS a blood sacrifice before that god is empowered with the capacity for forgiveness."
By all means, prove the above.
"Indeed, even within the Hebrew tradition, it was recognized that the blood sacrifices were a symbol, not the reality."
Strangely enough, the Temple sacrificial system continued up until the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD at which point there was no place to make the sacrifices.
"For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”""
I'm confused, you keep insisting that Jesus came to "preach good news to the poor and marginalized", yet here's Jesus saying that He "came to call"..."sinners".
"For I desire mercy, not sacrifice"
So Jesus is literally QUOTING one of the Hebrew prophets from Hebrew Scripture ("The Law and Prophets" Jesus mentioned).
Both Hosea and Samuel were YHWH rebuking Israel for engaging in the prescribed rituals, while failing to do so out of proper motives.
"The blood sacrifice is a SYMBOL, naught else, a symbol for laying out/down one's life in LOVE as God loves, loving God and one another (thereby, loving God, as the ancient writers repeatedly taught us).
In short, the literal blood of a dead animal (or dead god-man) NEVER brought forgiveness. Forgiveness comes through love."
By all means, objectively prove this claim.
"We can be sure that "the shedding of blood" is a METAPHOR, not a literal requirement such that no one could be forgiven if there were no animal or innocent human slaughtered."
Again, objectively prove your unsupported claim.
"THAT is the answer of the worst of paganism (with apologies to modern pagans!), not of reason or of God or Jesus."
I suspect that most Jews would take great offense at your referring to the Torah as "paganism", but you do you. Oh, and objectively prove this claim too.
"HOW could "forgiveness" be "purchased" by shedding blood?"
Well, I'm not YHWH and I don't really have the degree of knowledge about every reason why YHWH does things the way He does.
"t's an irrational and rather insane theory if you're trying to take it literally. Have you EVER found yourself empowered to forgive someone ONLY after some ritualistic slaying of innocents? "
It's either ignorance or something worse that results in crap like this misrepresentation of the sacrificial/atonement system established by YHWH.
"The blood is but a symbol of that love, that covenant."
Again, objective proof will be required as well as what covenant.
Closing by speaking for Jesus, quite the arrogant position to take.
When your "proof" actually points out that He didn't say exactly what you said He did, it's good for a laugh.
Again, Jesus didn't so much "say" that (in the sense of an original monologue) as (again) QUOTE from "The Law and Prophets". That you can justify your paraphrase, while continuing to act as if it's a quote, says all I need to hear about your an what you read into Scripture.
Gotcha, now I'm supposed to make assumptions about what you really mean when you act as if your paraphrase is a quote. Hilarious.
I recognize that proof text to be what Jesus intended it to be, no more no less. Certainly not a straitjacket applied retroactively to limit or prioritize The Gospel based on economic or demographic factors.
IT IS 3:50 CDT AND UNTIL DAN PROVIDES OBJECTIVE PROOF OF THE CLAIMS HE'S MADE ABOVE, HIS COMMENTS WILL BE ABORTED. THE MODERATION FOLDER IS FREE FROM ANY COMMENTS THEREFORE ANY COMMENTS THAT SHOW UP WILL BE AFTER THIS NOTICE AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO THIS RESTRICTION.
"I HAVE, by pointing out the reality that IS NEVER HAS HAPPENED EVER IN ALL THE HISTORY OF ALL THINGS EVERYWHERE."
This isn't proof, it's simply one more unproven claim. I really think that you don't understand that you making unsupported, unproven, claim in an attempt to "prove" a previous unsupported/unproven claim, isn't "proof" by any any objective standard.
You demanding that I prove you wrong, isn't you proving your claim to be objectively True.
If you listen you can hear the vacuum sucking your aborted comment out of moderation.
Dan likes to cite Hosea and 1 Samuel as if the point was the sacrifices themselves. No. The point was the spirit in which they were given, which wasn't reflective of what an obedient Hebrew was supposed to be. God instituted animal/blood sacrifice for the atonement of sin (to cite other cultures and their sacrificial systems is willful deception meant to minimize the importance of that which God instituted among His Chosen People), but He obviously preferred obedience and devotion to Him (a devoted person was obedient and most likely to abide the Law as close to perfectly as possible, that dedication to the effort being what pleased God most...obviously). The preference doesn't mean He didn't also insist upon animal sacrifice for the atonement of sin.
What follows are links to explanations for the sacrificial system God instituted for the atonement of sin. In each one finds the basis of PSA with regard to the animal sacrificial requirement, and thus, with Jesus referred to as "the Lamb of God", His purpose to become our substitute sacrifice for our redemption is heralded at the beginning of His ministry.
https://biblehub.com/topical/a/animal_sacrifices.htm
https://www.stepswithjesus.com/faith-questions-blog/purpose-of-animal-sacrifices
https://www.answerthebible.com/why-did-god-require-animal-sacrifices-in-the-old-testament/
https://biblerepository.com/bible-verses-about-animal-sacrifices/
https://thewitness.org/why-did-god-require-animal-sacrifices-in-the-old-testament/
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/why-did-god-require-animal-sacrifices-in-the-bible-does-it-serve-any-purpose-today.html
Dan has already made up his mind on the topic, I appreciate the effort and thought about raising him extended teaching from an expert, but I seem to recall something about pearls and swine. I’m convinced that I could produce excellent material on the topic by a professor and author, who speaks the various languages well enough to translate from the originals, and Dan would insist that he (Dan) knows better.
Dan doesn’t want evidence that might be convincing, or to answer a series of questions, he wants to be right without living up to the burden of proof he demands of others.
Dan started out with the PSA diversion, the original post didn’t even hint at that, but Dan knew that he had to obfuscate early and often.
Again, Dan chooses to hang his pointy hat on that one episode, and of course he does so without understanding any of it. In any case, Jesus came to do far more than "preach" whatever Dan thinks the "Good News" is (he never says) to whomever it serves Dan's marxist liberation theology to say was His only intended target audience. But of course, those who actually study Scripture know better:
https://biblehub.com/topical/j/jesus_explains_the_purpose_of_his_coming.htm
https://www.bibleanswer.com/whatjesuscametodo.htm
https://www.crossway.org/articles/4-things-jesus-came-to-do/
And thus, since these three links (and again, I could have provided many more to make this obvious point) cite the Gospels, including Christ's own words, clearly then, the disciples did indeed record them...OR THEY WOULDN'T BE IN THE GOSPELS!
Come now, little girl. Be reasonable.
I'm more than well aware of the futility of providing exactly what Dan demands to counter his false preaching, but I think it's well and good to see truth posted to follow his heresies and then see him try to babble his way out of it. Allow me this bit of entertainment.
"That I sum up "the blind, the captive, the oppressed" as "marginalized"..." does not mitigate the fact the verse refers to spiritual conditions and not the corporeal. That is, the poor in spirit, the blind to Truth, the captive to and oppressed by sin, etc. The Good News you don't at all understand wasn't intended for people in jail, oppressed by the Roman or Jewish authorities, literally blind people (and of course by extension, the deaf and mute, because, why not?) or those without a pot in which to piss, though it was for them, too, being they are also those God would prefer not perish.
And that's another verse you like to pervert being too deep into your perverse traditions to understand that it conflicts with your claim Christ came for the material poor and marginalized. Every hole you try to fill leaves you with the hole from which you dug the dirt for the purpose.
What’s more astonishing is the casual nonchalance with which Dan chooses to adapt, paraphrase, and alter Jesus’ words, while pretending like they’re accurate quotes.
Obviously, all of those terms are used to apply to spiritual conditions as well, but that’ll be ignored or dismissed too.
Notice how Dan left a couple of words off of the Luke passage? It’s almost like he didn’t like what Jesus said and decided to take away from it.
Post a Comment