Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In response to Bill Reilly who wants to protect one group (the rich) from the poor (who, according to him many cause their own problem), I stick with the words of Jesus--
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
New Living Translation
Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
English Standard Version
Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
New American Standard Bible
Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
Or how about Acts 2:44-45, where Christians practiced an early form of communism--
The emphasis of most churches, however, is far from the words of Jesus or the actions of early believers--it is closer to the words of Paul, who writes "God loves a cheerful giver," (2 Cor. 9:7) and "If I give all that I possess to the poor-----but have not love, I gain nothing." (I Cor. 13:3)
We therefore, justify ourselves by saying "Since I cannot give cheerfully, I will give nothing, but I will pray for those poor people and love them (from afar)." We certainly want to "gain" SOMETHING by our actions. But Jesus said in Matt 6:3, "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth." If one spends too much effort pondering giving, one will scheme to have even secret donations made public so that you might be praised. Thus the verse means that right hand should by reflex be generous without the need for mental calculations (I need a tax break, for instance.)
As the profane and vulgar comedian Lenny Bruce once said told an audience--
We look down upon the heroin addicted Bruce who died with a needle in his arm, but in his own humorous way he told us much about how to live as a true Christian.
None of the words of Jesus are appealing to us, and I promise you that you will try to forget them as soon as you can, because they make a demand upon us that is far, far more than most of us can bear (myself included).
I never became a minister because I soon learned my calling was to preach to the "saved" as opposed to the "lost." If there is one thing that the "saved" do not want to hear, it is that there is always a need to do one more thing (beyond saying, "Jesus, I accept you as my Savior"), among them that they must "sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
That is why the way is narrow and few find it, and even the most devout of us should be humbled by the demands of the one we call Lord.
And it's why the priest in the video above should pay more attention to his Pope.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning Jesus's teachings. Bill O'Reilly, himself a Catholic with a boatload of money, has concerns I'll never worry about.
Try doing small things--with great love. It may bring you closer to Christ than you think, and spread faster than you can imagine. And you won't have to thump your Bible our proclaim that you did it for Jesus. He'll know anyway.
How do you not know that I already purpose to live my life that way ?
2 Timothy 3:16: "*All* Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (emphasis mine)
Therefore, we ought not focus solely on Jesus' teaching, to the neglect of Paul's letters.
Nor should we focus on Paul's letters, to the neglect of the teaching contained in the Gospels.
If one part of Scripture is preferred above another, the end result might be nice sounding, but it won't be true to the Scriptures.
Therefore, if the Pope's motive is to recenter everything in such a way, that people will believe, and behave, in accordance to the fullness of Scripture - great.
But if he exhorts the social Gospel above all other parts of Scripture, he's not being faithful to the Scriptures.
Time will tell what his motives are, and thus far, it's refreshing to see his heart for the underprivileged.
New International Version
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Why did Jesus say that? What did Jesus focus on? The man's motivation. The answer follows:
Matthew 19:22: "When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth."
The man said he wanted to follow Jesus, but he was self righteous. He said that he had obeyed the all of the commandments, but the truth came to bear, when Jesus told him to sell all of his garments.
The man's true 'God' was not the Lord. It was his wealth...
Why did Jesus say that? What did Jesus focus on? The man's motivation. The answer follows:
Matthew 19:22: "When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth."
The man said he wanted to follow Jesus, but he was self righteous. He said that he had obeyed the all of the commandments, but the truth came to bear, when Jesus told him to sell all of his garments.
The man's true 'God' was not the Lord. It was his wealth...
Apparently, it was a problem for more rich people than the single individual addressed in Matt 19:22--
Mark 10:25 New Living Translation
In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!"
English Standard Version
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
For Jesus, great wealth was a continual problem. His preaching attracted the poor and the destitute, the hungry and the disenfranchised. There weren't many like Zacchaeus in Jesus' world.
Luke 19:8 New International Version
But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."
Paul was like most of us--an imperfect Christian--whose ideas have heavily influenced the church today, so much so that the overriding teachings of Jesus, whom he never met or lived with or followed on a daily basis, were changed from the original message to a conflated Christian story. If you read Mark or Matthew sans Paul, a quite different picture arises of Jesus than the one Sunday School Christians are taught. Although a thread of truth runs through the entire Bible, each book must be read separately and without mixing in the message of any other book--which is the way Sunday School Christians learn--a mixture of messages rather than each of the authors having a specific story to tell--and a reason for telling it that way.
I prefer Jesus over Paul. I prefer what I read that He had to say versus what Paul had to say. I'm not saying Paul should be ignored, only that when it conflicts with what Jesus said, then read Paul with a very big grain of salt. Don't get me started on the many, many, many ways that the teaching of Jesus differed from that of Paul. Paul was a man who only spent three weeks with those who had walked and talked with Jesus---and then he was none to pleased with what they told him, so he went out and preached a different gospel--different enough that at the end of his ministry he was called back to Jerusalem to account for his aberrational preaching and ordered to undergo a Nazarene vow--and pay for four other men to do the same. Before the vow could be completed he was going to be stoned by some Jews (possibly Christian Jews) who didn't think that the Nazarene vow was an appropriate punishment. Paul called on the protection of his Roman citizenship and was soon thereafter shipped off to Rome.
Conflating the gospels and the various letters simply results in a different Bible with a different story than what was written by the individual authors. It is that "different" Bible that too many try to hold as authoritative and has caused the Christian faith for the most part to become a religion ABOUT Jesus rather than the religion OF Jesus.
I'm not a Catholic by denomination. But the Pope is coming closer to being a Man of God in a high position than we have seen anywhere, in any denomination in a long, long time.
How do you not know that I already purpose to live my life that way ?
I don't. Hopefully you do!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
2 Timothy 3:16: "*All* Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (emphasis mine)
Written with regard to the OT. The author had no knowledge of any NT writings at the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
If one part of Scripture is preferred above another, the end result might be nice sounding, but it won't be true to the Scriptures.
Nothing Sunday School Christians believe is in anyway related to true Scriptures anyway. It is a conflated Bible. The authors in no way conferred with one another. Not a single author actually walked with Jesus. Even the authors of "Matthew" and "John" were followers. Further, not a single original manuscript OR letter is available for study, so you may "God-breathe" it all you want but there none of the "God-breathed" originals to peruse. Instead we have copies of copies of copies--and alteration after alteration after alteration--many insignificant, but some quite significant.
In fact, the very verse you quote is highly misunderstood. Yes, "Paul" (one of his followers actually) mentions “inspiration” (literally, “God-breathed”), but he uses it as an adjective to describe Scripture. He does not argue for inspiration.
So, why did Paul write this sentence to Timothy? To show one of the purposes of Scripture. What purpose?
Paul tells Timothy that Scripture can be useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness. But, teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness is NOT the “end” or “goal” for Paul. These are means to the goal.
What is that goal? So that God’s children (“man” does not refer to “males” here, but to people in general) may be prepared for good works. Did you catch that? The goal of teaching is not to be educated. The goal of correcting is not to be correct. The goal of rebuking is not to be straightened out. The goal of training is not to be able.
The goal of all of these things is good works.
If we teach people Scripture so they can quote, and correct their understanding using Scripture, and rebuke them where they’re wrong using Scripture, and train them in what Scripture says… if we do all these things, we have not used Scripture in the way that Paul intended it in this passage. Instead, the goal of teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training is that God’s children would do good works.
Read Hebrews 10:24 (another book written by a Pauline follower)
"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works---(ESV)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
But if he exhorts the social Gospel above all other parts of Scripture, he's not being faithful to the Scriptures.
Time will tell what his motives are, and thus far, it's refreshing to see his heart for the underprivileged.
I beg to differ. If he proposes the teachings of Jesus, if he exhorts the practices of Jesus, if he admonishes those who stand opposed to the same, he IS being faithful to the Scriptures.
Instead you must prove why people who question his motives while using such questions to justify their failure to act on behalf of others, is in fact really the purpose of Jesus.
You appear to be primarily a believer in orthodoxy (right believing) as opposed to primarily orthopraxy (right living). I say Jesus recognized orthopraxy first and foremost. My preference is to believe Jesus words in Mark 9:40, "For he who is not against us is for us." Apparently your preference is for the opposite words also attributed to Jesus in Luke 9:50, "He who is not with us, is against us."
I point the latter out to illustrate those statements are mutually exclusive, but both are attributed to Jesus. IT MATTERS A LOT how you read the Bible, how you understand the verses not as a conflated Sunday School story, but as separate authors for separate purposes and frequently to separate groups of people.
You may wish to make the Pope "prove" himself to you. I prefer to think of him as a Man of God until he "proves" himself otherwise. The difference is either faith or skepticism. I may be proven wrong, but that is not the story I'm going to have faith in.
Nothing Sunday School Christians believe is in anyway related to true Scriptures anyway. It is a conflated Bible. The authors in no way conferred with one another. Not a single author actually walked with Jesus. Even the authors of "Matthew" and "John" were followers. Further, not a single original manuscript OR letter is available for study, so you may "God-breathe" it all you want but there none of the "God-breathed" originals to peruse. Instead we have copies of copies of copies--and alteration after alteration after alteration--many insignificant, but some quite significant.
In fact, the very verse you quote is highly misunderstood. Yes, "Paul" (one of his followers actually) mentions “inspiration” (literally, “God-breathed”), but he uses it as an adjective to describe Scripture. He does not argue for inspiration.
So, why did Paul write this sentence to Timothy? To show one of the purposes of Scripture. What purpose?
Paul tells Timothy that Scripture can be useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness. But, teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness is NOT the “end” or “goal” for Paul. These are means to the goal.
What is that goal? So that God’s children (“man” does not refer to “males” here, but to people in general) may be prepared for good works. Did you catch that? The goal of teaching is not to be educated. The goal of correcting is not to be correct. The goal of rebuking is not to be straightened out. The goal of training is not to be able.
The goal of all of these things is good works.
If we teach people Scripture so they can quote, and correct their understanding using Scripture, and rebuke them where they’re wrong using Scripture, and train them in what Scripture says… if we do all these things, we have not used Scripture in the way that Paul intended it in this passage. Instead, the goal of teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training is that God’s children would do good works.
Read Hebrews 10:24 (another book written by a Pauline follower)
"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works---(ESV)
I beg to differ. If he proposes the teachings of Jesus, if he exhorts the practices of Jesus, if he admonishes those who stand opposed to the same, he IS being faithful to the Scriptures.
Instead you must prove why people who question his motives while using such questions to justify their failure to act on behalf of others, is in fact really the purpose of Jesus.
You appear to be primarily a believer in orthodoxy (right believing) as opposed to primarily orthopraxy (right living). I say Jesus recognized orthopraxy first and foremost. My preference is to believe Jesus words in Mark 9:40, "For he who is not against us is for us." Apparently your preference is for the opposite words also attributed to Jesus in Luke 9:50, "He who is not with us, is against us."
I point the latter out to illustrate those statements are mutually exclusive, but both are attributed to Jesus. IT MATTERS A LOT how you read the Bible, how you understand the verses not as a conflated Sunday School story, but as separate authors for separate purposes and frequently to separate groups of people.
You may wish to make the Pope "prove" himself to you. I prefer to think of him as a Man of God until he "proves" himself otherwise. The difference is either faith or skepticism. I may be proven wrong, but that is not the story I'm going to have faith in.
Amen! Warden. Your posts are a breath of fresh air in a polluted landscape of Christian divisiveness. Still can't rep you.
Paul was like most of us--an imperfect Christian--whose ideas have heavily influenced the church today, so much so that the overriding teachings of Jesus, whom he never met or lived with or followed on a daily basis, were changed from the original message to a conflated Christian story.
As to Paul's never having fellowshipped with Jesus, how do you reason the below passage:
Galatians 1:15-18: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
I prefer Jesus over Paul. I prefer what I read that He had to say versus what Paul had to say. I'm not saying Paul should be ignored, only that when it conflicts with what Jesus said, then read Paul with a very big grain of salt.
You're saying the Bible contradicts itself. Can you give me some examples of where Jesus and Paul contradict one another? I'd like to see it for myself - provided that examples are cited within the context of the verse.
I don't see it. For example:
Romans 13:10: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
Galatians 5:14: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
John 13:34: "A new commandment I give unto you: that ye love one another, as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."
Written with regard to the OT. The author had no knowledge of any NT writings at the time/
You sure about that? The below passage, Peter is validating Paul's writings as the inerrant Word of God:
2 Peter 3:15-16: "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Paul tells Timothy that Scripture can be useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness. But, teaching, correcting, rebuking, and training in righteousness is NOT the “end” or “goal” for Paul. These are means to the goal.
What is that goal? So that God’s children (“man” does not refer to “males” here, but to people in general) may be prepared for good works. Did you catch that? The goal of teaching is not to be educated. The goal of correcting is not to be correct. The goal of rebuking is not to be straightened out. The goal of training is not to be able.
The goal of all of these things is good works.
Who would disagree with that ? So what you're saying, if I understand you, is that Godly character comes before Godly works?
As to the Pope, he has a clean slate with me. However, as John exhorted:
1 John 4:1: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
You sure about that? The below passage, Peter is validating Paul's writings as the inerrant Word of God:
2 Peter 3:15-16: "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
<snip>
Except Peter didn't write 2nd Peter. It was most likely a close follower of Paul using Peter's name to make Paul look better!! Second Peter has been the most questioned of all the letters of the New Testament for centuries.
Quote:
The informed skeptic is aware that out of all the epistles accepted into the cannon, none has received as much difficulty as Second Peter. Rejection of Peter as the author of Second Peter is the most common opinion today, and is supported by one of Christianity’s most authoritative conservative biblical scholars, Bruce Metzger, (a scholar that I personally have high regard for). Metzger writes:
"Although the author of this letter calls himself ‘Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ’ (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author of the early second century who wrote in Peter’s name....In light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that 2 Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority" (The New Testament, its background, growth, and content, pg. 258).
In scholarly circles, Second Peter is classified as a pseudonymity, a term referring to, as Metzger mentions, an author assuming the name of another and writing supposedly on his behalf.
------------ Prior to being recognized as canonical by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century, Second Peter was in much dispute. The text was quoted less and discussed more by early Christians than any other book of the New Testament as the Christian historian Eusebius once acknowledged: "that which is called the second, we have not, indeed, understood to be embodied with the sacred books, yet as it appeared useful to many, it was studiously read with the other Scriptures"(H.E. 3.3).Even Origen, who lived about a century (ca. A.D. 185-253) before Eusebius, mentioned that Peter "left one epistle undisputed," and that "the second left by him, for on this there is some doubt" (as recorded by Eusebius, H.E. VI. 25).
Before reading any epistle, read the scholarly reviews about it. Once you have finally accepted who the author may or may not have been, the letter itself can be more carefully read to determine what part is revelation and what part is simply an axe grinding.
P.S. If you want to stick with purely "conservative" views, then read Metzger's book, The New Testament: It's Background, Growth, and Content (3rd edition). It's a bit too conservative for me, but still will give you some small steps toward a scholarly approach to the Scripture as opposed to a Sunday School approach.
If you read it, then you should know that every pastor who went to a major seminary was taught many of the things that simply overwhelm Sunday School Christians. Why won't those pastors bring that information to the attention of their flock? Are they afraid some might stray? Are they concerned that donations will decrease?
It's a conundrum, because educated pastors most certainly have been presented with difficult to reconcile scholarly approaches to scripture.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 12-04-2013 at 11:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
?
The motivation of the rich
