JenellYB Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Paul, in your comments in the last post, response to Joseph, I'm just kind of thinking, perhaps this IS a matter you are, within yourself, personally ,struggling with at this point...no one else can give you,YOUR answers, that are the ones you seek, want, need. Jenell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 (edited) Paul, in your comments in the last post, response to Joseph, I'm just kind of thinking, perhaps this IS a matter you are, within yourself, personally ,struggling with at this point...no one else can give you,YOUR answers, that are the ones you seek, want, need. Jenell There is an element of that, but really it's not so much a struggle that I personally lose much sleep over, rather I am trying to understand how the lack of doing all one can ties in with Christianity and the message of Jesus, who Christians consider the exemplar of life itself. I guess I'm sort of trying Christianity on for size but wondering about the cut of the suit. Edited February 16, 2012 by Paul Smedley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I can sure understand that. Jenell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Thanks Joseph. I think I understand your point - although I might be beating myself up about needing to do more, the fact that I'm not doing more is because at present I can't, that's exactly why I'm not doing more. Perhaps there's a distinction though between not being able to do more, and maybe telling ourselves there's not much more we can do, when in fact there is? Paul, It seems to me, beating our-self up is what the mind likes to do. It makes it strengthens our sense of self. Loving just as you are unconditionally is what God does, not condemning or judging. for not being able to do what we might think we should be doing. Of course there is always more that 'can' (hypothetical); be done but there is also only so much that you can do at this moment. Why because (my view) you are only able to do what you are enabled mentally/emotionally, physically and spiritually to do at this time. Whether you are filthy rich or not makes no difference. Perhaps in the future you will feel led in some way you can't describe to do something more and you will cheerfully be able to do it and it won't be out of guilt or necessity or feelings of should or shouldn't but rather out of a place of peace and love.. I can't explain it but there are times i really wanted to give to someone in need but something inside (not forceful or coercive) said not to give so i didn't. Neither did i understand it at the time.. On a few of those occasions i later understood and saw that my choice was for the best because there was something for the other to learn.. Wisdom, to me, in what to do, always comes silently from a spirit of peace and not from the confusion of the mind. Just some further thoughts, Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Several times in this thread, the biblical saying attributed to Jesus about the poor has been mentioned or alluded to: "For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me" (Mat. 26:11 also in Mark). So, I decided to check a little into this and see if I could determine what is meant since it seems contrary to the general theme of Jesus' ministry and the Bible in general. I could find very little commentary in material that I have at hand. However, I did find that the fellows of the Jesus Seminar (The Five Gospels) overwhelmingly voted that this verse is not authentic to Jesus. They say regarding the passage (Mat 10-13), "The words ascribed to Jesus are best understood as creative elements provided by the storyteller." Regarding the similar Mark passage, they say, "the second aphoristic statement is perhaps based on Deut 5:11." In any event, what do we make of it? Why would Mark and Matthew have said this? Would this justify someone accepting poverty as inevitable and intractable, therefore any action is a waste of resources? I would be interested if anyone has any information as to how this has been explained in theology. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) George, i don't know. Yet when you look at the ministry of Jesus, i don;t think there is a single instance where he addressed everyone and it is recorded he said that people should give all their excess to the poor. Besides, i think it is no secret that there will always be poor with us no matter what unless and until the mindset of people changes. In my view, As long as mankind is ruled by the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, there will be the poor among us. Until mankind on an individual and collective basis becomes ruled more by wisdom than wants and desires, poverty will be among us. Increasing and redistributing money and the food supply alone without mindset changes in my view will increase rather than decrease poverty. Over-population then becomes self-regulating in nature with famines, diseases and the like as natural resources are stripped. I think watching animals and nature in the wild can teach us much that can benefit humans if we take heed and want a more balanced life for all. Joseph Edited February 20, 2012 by JosephM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 George, i don't know. Yet when you look at the ministry of Jesus, i don;t think there is a single instance where he addressed everyone and it is recorded he said that people should give all their excess to the poor. Besides, i think it is no secret that there will always be poor with us no matter what unless and until the mindset of people changes. In my view, As long as mankind is ruled by the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, there will be the poor among us. Until mankind on an individual and collective basis becomes ruled more by wisdom than wants and desires, poverty will be among us. Increasing and redistributing money and the food supply alone without mindset changes in my view will increase rather than decrease poverty. Joseph I'm not really concerned about which exact words are attributed to Jesus and which aren't. I don't think there are many who would dispute that the general impression of Jesus we obtain through the NT is of a man who cares little for himself and mostly about his fellow man. A man who shuns any material possession for himself but lives a life that tries to provide 'wealth' to all. It's in that context I raised this post and whilst I did refer to money, I wish I had more eloquently explained that I also meant about giving time and effort. Essentially I was questioning that if Christians were true followers of Christ, wouldn't all of them do nothing in their lives other than try to attend to their fellow humans in distress? To me that seems the entire focus of Jesus. To say there will always be poor with us no matter what unless and until the mindset of people changes, seems to me a little bare (I'm not sure that's the right word), in that surely it is our mindset now, the one that says we need savings, a debt-free home, a nice car, etc, that is prohibiting helping the needy around the world. I don't mean this as an insult at all Joseph, as I am just trying to work through my thoughts, but this sounds too much to me like we are waiting for others to change, yet not prepared to set the example ourselves. We seem comfortable with the status quo and are happy to not go overboard in our efforts, by justifying that it won't totally fix things, so let's not worry about it. It seems that this and your next statement makes an excuse of not doing everything now because it won't make enough of a difference untill everybody else changes. That doesn't, to me anyway, seem to correlate with how Jesus lived his life or the message he was trying to communicate. And that being the case, how much do followers of Jesus really follow Jesus' example? These are just thoughts I am tossing around and I really hope they don't offend. They are not intended to. Cheers Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think that, in biblical times, material poverty seemed inevitable and would prompt an aphorism such that in Mark and Matthew. However, in our time, I don't think that it is, at least on a national (U.S.) level, Rather it is a matter of national priorities. When our society pays farmers not to plant; when we spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined; when billionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries, I think it is hard to claim that poverty is inevitable. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 In considering the question of what the theology is pertaining to anything in the bible, Jesus's words or otherwise, I think on a lot ofit, there couldn't be said to be 'a' theology, in sense of being even fairly universally accepted. one can find any number of ways people have interpreted and thought to apply something from something like this, but I don't think we could call any of that, a theology. I think its natural for human thought to often have difficulty discerning between such concepts as understanding, meaning, and interpretation, opinion. This is especially so with what are sometimes called 'the hard sayings'. Early reference to Jesus' sayings often called them 'the secret sayings of Jesus', not that they were kept secret, people not allowed to hear them, but that it was understood there were levels of deeper meaning below the obvious. That Jesus didn't always say the same thing, seems to have said different even opposing things at different times....some of that, I think might be understood in the observation, Jesus didn't say the same thing to everyone. (this a point relevant to other scripture as well). I think it is common to miss, misunderstand, or misinterpret points when we neglect to consider who is speaking to whom and under what circumstance and conditions. I think there's a great deal of that in common Christian intepretation, assuming something said to someone in one sitiduation is taken to be applicable to any and everyone in all situations. For some of what might be called 'the hard sayings', ones either no one seems to make 'fit' just right, that one can often find as many different interpretations as you have people in a room, yet none of them 'feel right', I have come to feel these are the sayings we might find most productive to mind for hidden gold. Now it may be so that some of these things in the text really weren't as Jesus said them, added by others, but, before assuming that, I've found it good to consider, maybe what is reallyt here just hasn't hit me yet. Or many of us. There are several such things in NT scripture especially I have been ready to snip out, throw away, as it made no sense to meand none else seemed to have a good interpretation either, but at some point something emerged fromwithin it that snapped the lightbulb on...I saw, understood something, that upon further reasonable test, held up well. Jenell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 In considering the question of what the theology is pertaining to anything in the bible, Jesus's words or otherwise, I think on a lot ofit, there couldn't be said to be 'a' theology, in sense of being even fairly universally accepted. one can find any number of ways people have interpreted and thought to apply something from something like this, but I don't think we could call any of that, a theology. I didn't mean to imply that this single verse would represent a theology or there was some universal agreement on the meaning. However, I suspect that this has been examined and explained by theologians and I am curious as to how it has been interpreted. I can see where this could be used to justify a focus on personal salvation with the plight of the poor not a high priority. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Paul, I think you bring up some good points. i also agree that what i wrote might, if taken alone, sound like excuses. Of course i would rather excuse people for being people rather than accusing them of anything. Everyone as someone else said in this thread can't do like Jesus. Some have to provide infrastructure and create jobs for others. IE I was a small business man for 14 years and employed up to 5 people at times. This helped put a few through college and provided income that was above poverty level for my workers. That's doing something for others and of course benefited myself. That was in a sense to me doing a service for others. I don't think judging ourselves by the reported life or our perceived teachings of Jesus is founded in wisdom. IMO, we can only do in wisdom what God does through us. You said..... It seems that this and your next statement makes an excuse of not doing everything now because it won't make enough of a difference untill everybody else changes. I think what you write here misreads the total context of all i have said in this thread. None of what i said was to prevent anyone from making a difference. If anything it was to show that sometimes the appearance of doing 'good' can actually do the opposite. And also to suggest that one should not beat themselves up over not doing more than they might think they 'should' be doing. To me, love is not found in a system of acts that appear to be doing good, but rather in a wisdom that sees beyond appearances. That wisdom tells me that one can do the most good by being in harmony with the whole picture. And that whole picture transcends (as Tillich might say) rules because to be most effective one must act in accordance with that love which is not always and often can be in disagreement with an individuals perception and appearances of what needs to be done.. Now if you think that believing thusly is just an excuse by me or prevents me from doing what is God's will for me to do in this life, then by what measure ? The Bible? Your perceptions of Jesus's teachings or God's will? A golden Rule? Or an insight founded in Love that transcends all of what i mentioned? Just something to consider, Joseph Edited February 20, 2012 by JosephM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I didn't mean to imply that this single verse would represent a theology or there was some universal agreement on the meaning. However, I suspect that this has been examined and explained by theologians and I am curious as to how it has been interpreted. I can see where this could be used to justify a focus on personal salvation with the plight of the poor not a high priority. George I think you hit a good point here....one's accepted theology on larger matters, the oversall scheme, certainly colors and filters how one interprets smaller points within the text...in the case you mention, a focus on personal salvation as a basic element of theology is going to interpret smaller matters in way consistent with and complimentary to that. Jenell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) To me, love is not found in a system of acts that appear to be doing good, but rather in a wisdom that sees beyond appearances. That wisdom tells me that one can do the most good by being in harmony with the whole picture. And that whole picture transcends (as Tillich might say) rules because to be most effective one must act in accordance with that love which is not always and often can be in disagreement with an individuals perception and appearances of what needs to be done. Okay, that makes some sense to me. Now if you think that believing thusly is just an excuse by me or prevents me from doing what is God's will for me to do in this life, then by what measure ? The Bible? Your perceptions of Jesus's teachings or God's will? A golden Rule? Or an insight founded in Love that transcends all of what i mentioned? True. It would come from one's perception of Jesus' teachings and one's own interpretation of those i guess. I'm pretty much sure it wouldn't be froman insight founded in Love. Interesting. Thanks for those points. Joseph Cheers Paul Edited February 21, 2012 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivanna Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I just wanted to respond to a question George brought up yesterday, on Jesus’ quote about the poor in Matthew and Mark – it’s also in John, the same scene towards the end when he’s visited at dinner by the anointing woman. Mary had bought an alabaster jar of nard and was rubbing the ointment into his feet and wiping them with her hair, which women were supposed to let down only in private. Her action was socially taboo and intensely sensual. But also it was an extravagant act of devotion—the large jar of ointment was worthy of a king, a gift of royal honor in anticipation of his death. In the gospel of John, Judas responds with indignation -- "Why wasn't this sold for 300 hundred denari and the money given to the poor?" John's version states he didn't really care about the poor; perhaps even stole from the disciples’ funds, and was about to betray his master. Jesus' response to Judas is mild reproach or impatience, ending with: "You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me." What is implied in Jesus' statement—"Let her alone so that she may keep it for the day of my burial"—is that Mary didn't use the whole jar but kept some for later. Since Jesus was crucified, no anointing at burial was allowed; perhaps that explains her weeping at the feet that would soon be pierced. According to the commentary below, Jesus’ words reflect a tradition in the Jewish culture of the time, that valued supreme acts of mercy for those about to die, even more than relief for the poor. So the quote has to be taken as a singular exception, mainly a defense of the woman involved. ..definitely not to be misinterpreted as apathy or disregard for the poor. http://gotell.org/pd..._commentary.pdf Edited February 21, 2012 by rivanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 According to the commentary below, Jesus’ words reflect a tradition in the Jewish culture of the time, that valued supreme acts of mercy for those about to die, even more than relief for the poor. So the quote has to be taken as a singular exception, mainly a defense of the woman involved. ..definitely not to be misinterpreted as apathy or disregard for the poor. Rivianna, Thanks, this is the type of explanation I was looking for. I suspect that there are other takes on this as well. I would point out that while this understanding does not express apathy toward the poor, it does place a higher value on honoring someone who is about to die than feeding the hungry. And, John's Jesus (along with Mark and Matthew) seems to endorse this. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhanover Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 After thinking about this general subject for many years, I have reached the conclusion that I just cannot do it. "It" being a Christ-like life. The operating manual for a Christian life is included in Matthew chapters 5, 6 and 7. Those chapters are probably the source of the card player's boast, "read 'em and weep". Not only can I not live like that, I don't know anyone who looks like they are even getting close. Do not resist evil? Yikes! if someone sues you for your pants give him your coat too? Not very likely. Give to everyone who asks, lend without expecting repayment, if someone hits you with a left cross ask him for a right cross as well, etc.? How about prayer? Don't let anybody know you do it. How about charity? Never divulge that you have given anything to anyone, deserving or undeserving. If any of you are as bleak about all this as I am, I have rewritten the Sermon on the Mount to conform with what I believe to be human capabilities. Here is a free copy: "Do the best you can until you die, and then let God sort it out". Hollis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Actually, I think you sum it up pretty nicely, lol. First, I think there some consideration to give to what any might mean be 'to live link Jesus.' Some have taken that in such a literal material sense as to eat, drink, dress, and wander around talking God stuff with a bunch of like vagabonds.... Jesus lived, just as any of us, in a particular time and place, culture, society, and niche within that society. we love in a diffenent world. Each of us...my time and place and niche is different from yours and overone of us is different in that. I tend to make more of it as living 'true' to who you are, what you may feel called to in your life and circumsntances, with a goal of integrity suitable to our time, place, and station in life. A definite area of tension in Christian ethics is between being giving, charitable, generous, even sacrficial to others' well-being and good, on the one hand, and personal responsibilbity and moral/social obligations on the other. To give to anybody and everybody that asks to the point you are unable to meet your own needs or those of your family depending upon you just can't be reconciled in any way I know of. For a rich man to give everything to the poor so as to become poor himself seems to me to do nothing but add yet another to the number of the poor. Jenell 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Hollis, Do you think that Jesus intended a literal meaning of these rather extreme measures? Did he really mean we should actually pluck out an offending eye? I don't think so. I suspect that he was using exaggerated responses to indicate that we should go an extra mile or two in these situations. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhanover Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 George, I'm not even sure Jesus said these things. I believe that Matthew's author had the opinion that if Jesus had something to say on the subject he would have said what was written. Early middle eastern authors were not a bit reluctant to credit their own thoughts to someone famous if they were certain that they were getting the gist right. I think Matthew was trying to get this point across: they can't hurt you if you don't give a doodoo what happens. Pretty good advice to a church which largely consisted of Jews and which was primarily located in a country which, just a few years earlier, the Romans had just stomped flat. Hollis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Hollis, I absolutely agree that many of the sayings you alluded to are not word for word from the mouth of Jesus. However, some of these, I think, do originate with Jesus. This exaggerated response seems to be a stylistic or rhetorical feature that runs through the Gospels. As an example, the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar (in The Five Gospels) say about plucking out an offending eye and cutting off a troublesome right hand (Mat. 5:29-30) that "It is also possible that the radical contrast these sayings represent echoes the voice of Jesus . . . The majority held that , although the sayings may have originated with Jesus, they have been remodeled to suit the circumstances of the primitive Christian community." The JS Fellows thought that the sayings in Mat 5:38-41 (turning the other cheek, giving your coat if sued for your shirt, etc.) were authentic to Jesus. They say, "These cleverly worded aphorisms provide essential clues to what Jesus really said. And the consensus among the Fellows of the Seminar was exceptionally high." George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhanover Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Right. "Echoes the voice of Jesus" is an eloquent and cogent way to put it. Takes some of the skepticism out of the way I say it. I think I will adopt it. Without attribution of course. Hollis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 This week I spent an hour learning about the 1982 massacre at Dos Arres, Guatemala, where all (approx 200. inhabitants) were slaughtered by government troops. Many killed with a sledge hammer to the head. But dead or not they were thrown down a well. http://www.chron.com...ere-3587668.php Then I heard of the 90 deaths, including 30 children, in Syria. I can't tell you how gruesome this video is, really. ... it shows children littering the floor, literally, children who've been gravely injured and who are dead. http://www.npr.org/2...-a-game-changer Sunday in worship a woman gave a plug for Plant a Row for the Hungry. I thought, any little light shines brightly against such darkness. She has little or no influence in Syria or Guatemala but the food she grows feeds the hungry. Dutch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.