The following was put together by Dan at his Blog of Lies and Perversions and I had bring it here so he couldn't delete my response. I believe it was in the comments section of his Wendell Berry "Memorial" on September 22, 2026 at 5:29 AM. I’ll be adding my response to his selections after each, providing truths Dan ignores to pretend his beloved are actually saints and/or heroes. However, I’m going to reverse the lists and begins with those Dan has condemned in his typically “erase grace” manner.
Conservative heroes about whom Dan asserts are actually bad and vulgar people, criminals and killers, and frankly, as a rule, just generally not that bright.
Trump (corrupt felon, sexual
predator and war criminal)
It can definitely be said that Trump is “vulgar” in the original sense of the
word, which refers to the common or ordinary man. Despite his wealth and celebrity, he’s very
much like most Americans. Thus, Dan
finds Americans to be vulgar in the more contemporary sense: “morally
crude/offensive”, which describes Dan’s type quite well given that which he
supports, defends, celebrates and enables.
One example of this is Dan’s defaulting to Trump’s conviction in a clearly
kangaroo court, the purpose of which was to interfere in the upcoming election
and deny Trump a legitimate contest out of pure hatred and spite. That his kind have a legitimate reason for
this attitude is unproven and without true basis. As is so common of the truly vulgar fake
Christian, one need not have evidence for a charge against an opponent, but
only has the assertion of the charge for that charge to be fact.
The charge of sexual predation is equally devoid of true substance, but only
the word of almost a dozen women, two of whom are, by definition, whores, another
his ex-wife who admitted her charges against him in her autobiography were
false and driven by spite. (She supported him for president). No others have any evidence making their
claims against him credible in the least.
The real issue here is that Trump is a well known womanizer, though no
known case of his alleged “predation” involved force, and his “prey” were
willing accomplices in his immorality due to the potential windfall for them
had he made any of them his main squeeze.
In other words, totally consensual affairs. Trump’s public (and not so public) joking
about women provide haters and graceless fake Louisville “Christians” ammo to
exploit to perpetuate a fantasy about the man for partisan gain.
The “war criminal” charge is pure stupidity which also lacks hard evidence to
make it worthy of the time of day.
Reagan (war criminal)
This also is the fantasy of leftist haters…for many because this former
Democrat left the party after seeing the light.
The abjectly hateful make this charge because he made life hard for
actual war criminals. Reagan is the
other side of the coin tossed to decide between whether it is he or Trump who
gets the trophy for best president since 1955 (the year of my birth). Both raised living conditions of all
Americans through economic polices which led to growth. Both fought to defeat real threats to our way
of life. Both revitalized a US military previous
administrations allowed to decay. Both
elevated the spirit of patriotism among the populace, making it OK to love
America again.
Kirk
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume Dan’s referring to Charlie Kirk
here. It’s fashionable for progressives
to hate on Charlie Kirk as if they actually have legitimate reason to do so. This young man died at the hands of “trans”
enabler, partially for speaking the truth about the lies of the “pro-trans”
community activists, but also because he had a keen mind regarding all the
issues upon which he debated. As Kirk
was not in any way actually bad or a vulgar person as Dan defines the word, nor
was he in any way a criminal or killer, that leaves on the nonsensical notion
that he was in some way “not that bright”.
But then, this comes from the imagination of Dan Trabue who can’t even
defend his own positions in an honest, straightforward manner as if he truly
believes his own nonsense. Dan just
hates, and he hates truth. Kirk defended
truth, and that’s enough to put him on Dan’s hit list of better people he wants
others to hate along with him
Jan 6 felons (violent criminals)
Very few of the Jan 6 defendants were actually held or convicted for violent
acts. Of those who were, it’s highly
questionable how many acted without provocation given the unprofessional
actions of Capitol police. Yet, the
massive amounts of destruction and people killed during the many “mostly
peaceful” protests of Dan’s kind provoke no consideration by the likes of Dan.
White men who shoot black men
(violent criminals/murderers)
Are abjectly few in number, far outweighed by the murders and other attacks on
white people by black men, as all reputable sources confirm. And it doesn’t come close to the number of
black men murdered by black men…also confirmed by law enforcement statistics. Not to put too fine a point on it, this is
just Dan padding his list with fantasy from the race baiters and race hustlers
he stupidly regards as credible.
ICE kidnappers and murderers...
There are none.
White "Jesus," in THEIR
conservative words (ie, not actually Jesus)
Our conservative words speak accurately only of the Jesus of Scripture. Only racist Jeff St. grace erasing fake
Christians speak of a “white Jesus”. The
hippie Jesus of which such people speak bears only the most superficial of
resemblances to the actual Jesus revealed to us in Scripture.
Now we look at “Progressive saints/heroes”...about whom Dan regards as actually
good people noted for their great love and stands for justice for all and human
rights.
Wendell Berry
This is a guy I’m now still researching, but the early returns leave me hard
pressed not to regard this guy as highly overrated. What he brings to the table is exactly the
same pretentious tripe which those like Dan find so enamoring. I’ll be hitting the Charleston library soon
to find a few tomes of this dude to slog through what no doubt will improve my
ability to sleep, but I’m willing to given him a chance as a writer. What I don’t expect to see is anything
written which is worth more than making lefties feel good…nothing of substance
upon which a legitimate responsible society can act in a corporate manner to
make life better for all. Here I offer
three of the only articles I’ve found which directly find fault in the guy, and
while I don’t think I’ll find anything which makes me hate the guy to any
extent, I’m no confident I’ll find anything which is more the idealistic drivel
which comes with no legitimate plan of action to improve our lot as
Americans…that is, nothing which is not already known to honest people:
https://www.plough.com/articles/the-hole-in-wendell-berrys-gospel
I found a response to this which didn’t negate the points of contention raised
by this author.
https://faithandleadership.com/allen-t-stanton-why-i-hate-wendell-berry
https://allenstanton.substack.com/p/when-i-hated-wendell-berry-why-we
As you can see, these two are from the same dude, the second of which prompted
by responses to the first. As one raised
in a basically rural area which grew into something far more, I can relate to
much of what he says. It should be
understood that none of it should be taken as a claim that Berry is some kind
of horror show Dan pretends is true of the previous list. I just think that the labels “saint” or
“hero” do not at all apply to this guy, regardless of how I eventually might
come to regard him after reading some of his stuff. If he was the man Dan pretends he is, I’m
left wondering why a guy like me, who reads all sorts of stuff, is not well
familiar with him. At this point, I
would simply suggest he’s just some dude who writes pretentious stuff and
thinks having his plough pulled by a horse makes him more noble or
saintly. Not a bad guy…just not at all a
great one.
Barack Obama
This one is hilarious. This is a guy
who’s greatest accomplishment was to increase the cost of health care on the
passage of a bill we were told would lead to a reduction. He’s a fraud and his shipments of cash to the
mullahs of Iran led to countless deaths and these animals being closer to
launching nuclear weapons. He totally
trashed race relations in this country (his wife being a total racist) and
overall did next to nothing for the black community. He did promote perversion, which isn’t hard
to believe for a guy who wrote about homosexual fantasies, allowed a homosexual
to pleasure his member orally while he toked on a crack pipe (twice) and whose
relationship with two different homosexuals who allegedly committed suicide was
ignored as not even a reality by sycophants in the media, and of course
rejected as conservative conspiracy theories by those like Dan. (In the meantime, keep in mind, negative
allegations by those of Dan’s kind against conservatives are as fact simply
because the allegations were made!
Dorothy Day (who wouldn't want to be
called a saint!)
Socialist who distanced herself from the term after converting to Catholicism
and continued being a socialist.
Annie Dillard
Not much found as yet, but what I’ve found suggests more pretentious crap of
the type which tingles the lady bits of those like Dan Trabue. How such a person, even if personally
enjoyed, can be regarded as either a saint or hero requires some truly
substantive arguments. Just how has
anything she’s written resulted in the betterment of the general welfare.
Just as for Dan accusing right-wing figures of evil makes the claim of their
evil a fact, so too does Dan’s worship of whomever he worships make the person
worshiped a deity. No evidence
required. Dan has spoken.
Jimmy Carter
I present the following written by a lefty, who clearly has more on the ball
than a simp like Dan ever could have:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/11/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-legacy-2/
Hard to read and come away believing the writer is a conservative. To this I would add his posturing during and
after his presidency. Carrying his own
luggage for posturing purposes when in fact the suitcase was empty. Pretending he’s making a difference by
wearing a sweater and turning down the White House thermostat. Wasting several acres of farmable land on
solar panels. Dressing like a carpenter
to hammer in a few nails for the camera where volunteers for Habitat of
Humanity were doing the actual work, and
then leaving after the shots were taken.
Validating corrupted elections as If he had the ability to truly detect
fraud and the power to then do something about it.
Rev. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr
The vile, vulgar and outrageous evil of this guy has been documented by both
Chad O. Jackson and Matt Walsh. King was
the perverse sexual predator Dan wishes Trump would be. King physically abused women, as was
confirmed by his own associates. He was
a communist, a plagiarist and not really a reverend. He certainly was no Christian and rejected
much of basic Christian doctrine. Dan
likes to call Trump a con artist. Kind
was the epitome of such a criminal and people like Dan just fall all over
themselves like perfect useful idiot sheep when references to King come
up.
Gandhi
https://allthatsinteresting.com/gandhi-facts-quotes-dark-side#19
Yeah…Dan’s judgement of character is unsurpassed.
Jane Goodall
I found this one to be a strange addition.
Goodall’s work with chimps is well known, but as I refreshed my memory of
her life and times there are the typical leftist environmental slop which always
warm the cockles of many a progressive heart.
On one hand, I think her work was indeed quite cool. On the other, I have big problems with anthropomorphism,
and Janie’s big on it. I don’t care that
animals have feelings, especially when I’m grilling one up. Animals exist primarily for human
benefit. It’s not noble or godly to deny
the use of animals for the purpose of scientific research in the development of
medicines or anything else which leads to saving human lives.
And then there’s this:
https://ksj.mit.edu/tracker-archive/jane-goodall-book-scandal-most-journalis/
Yet, she might be the least offensive on Dan’s list.
Jesus, in his own words
Now here’s one who is not, because the Jesus Dan pretends to worship is a Jesus
of his own making. Dan’s Jesus is a hippie. And when Dan speaks of “Jesus, in his own
words”, he’s referring only to those words of Jesus he likes, as well as words
he can pervert to mean what he needs them to mean.
What’s most glaring about Dan’s lists is how it’s yet another manifestation of that which is all too routine…he inflates and elevates the character of his heroes and does just the opposite with regard to those he doesn’t regard as heroes at all. You’ll note he calls his progressive heroes “saints” and doesn’t use that word for the conservatives. This is a noted symptom of Dan’s sin nature, which inhibits his ability to be honest.
The reality is that Dan’s two lists are really one list comprised of sinners…people with sin natures (I’m naturally exempting the true Jesus of Scripture and ignoring Dan’s cartoon Jesus who only superficially resembles the true Jesus of Scripture). But Dan goes way out of his way to focus on that which he believes are positive traits of his progressive heroes while totally ignoring their negatives, which for several of them are indeed severely negative, and conversely focuses on the negatives of the conservatives, inflating their “missteps” and “mark missing” while totally ignoring their documented beneficial works. It’s as if he put this list together in order to admit he’s a hateful grace erasing liar.
336 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 336 of 336Yes, this cannot be overemphasized. It is important to focus on what the word meant and the author's intent in using that particular word when the text was written rather than impose a 21st century progressive definition on the word based on the English translation.
In John's Gospel, Jesus speaks of His followers having a "new nature". Does not the existence of a "new nature" not strongly suggest the existence of an "old nature"? If so, what is the "old nature" that Jesus is replacing with the "new nature"?
Craig...
"The dismissal of anyone who disagrees with your 21st century progressive views on Jesus and Scripture as not "rational" is, itself, not rational."
Once again this is literally not what I said. I did not say anyone who disagrees with my views on Jesus' words is not rational. I'm saying people who look at the text rationally and objectively, without an allegiance to preconceived human traditions, they are not likely to find your human interpretations there.
Read for understanding. If you can't accurately understand my words, then why do you think you're able to understand biblical words?
Dan
This just came up in a Bible study I'm doing and it seemed instructive.
"13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.""
Jesus literally makes the entire case for why He came, died, and was resurrected from the Hebrew Scriptures, the Torah, the Law, and the Prophets. How much more directly could Jesus have tied Himself and His ministry to the Hebrew Scriptures?
"44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for[c] the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”"
Then Jesus appears to His Disciples, those who knew Him best and when asked, He AGAIN goes directly to the Hebrew Scriptures. Specifically referring to the Torah (the law of Moses {which would seem to be acknowledging Moses as a real person and his writings as Scripture}, the Psalms, and the Prophets). He doesn't point to the fact that He's been resurrected to answer them, He points to their own Scripture. If all of the evidence Jesus needed to cite to "prove" Himself was in the Hebrew Scriptures, why would we need anything more than that?
I'm not suggesting that the NT isn't important, I am suggesting that there is an inextricable link between Jesus and The Gospel and The Hebrew Scriptures, and that Jesus Himself makes that abundantly clear.
"39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. "
Oh, look. First Luke 24, now John 5. Jesus (at the beginning of His ministry) points directly to the Hebrew Scriptures because they "bear witness" to Him.
No, the bitching was earlier when you got pissy about a small number of questions, which I answered. You then proceeded to simply pile more questions on, while expecting that I’d answer questions you didn’t ask.
It’s all a shtick, I get it. It’s your go to defense mechanism when you run out of substance. But expecting me to answer questions that don’t exist is quite a stretch, even for you.
Craig:
Further, I don't get as hung up as Dan on labeling people "good, bad, evil". I think it makes more sense to look at someone's actions and label their actions thus.
Just fyi, since you don't seem to understand my actual position, this is my position:
A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit.
A good tree can’t produce bad fruit, and a bad tree can’t produce good fruit.
So every tree that does not produce good fruit is chopped down and thrown into the fire.
Yes, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit,
so you can identify people by their actions.
James recognizes this:
Isn’t it the rich who oppress you and drag you into court?
Aren’t they the ones who slander Jesus Christ, whose noble name you bear?
Who, along with Jesus, the prophets and good, reasonable humans recognize the terribly corruptive power of too much wealth.
The distinction being, once someone reaches a level of active oppression an abuse of power (and the poor and marginalized that inevitably goes along with that according to reality, history and many biblical witnesses including Jesus Christ who was killed by the rich and powerful!), while we may still hope and pray for their salvation - for that time when they release that wealth and harmful, oppressive power that goes along with it - to join with Jesus and the beloved community of the poor and marginalized... while we may still hope for that, at some point when the poor and marginalized are being actively harmed, there comes a time to turn some tables over and to call an abuser an abuser.
Sometimes, that sort of shaming and rebuke is part of what it takes for the abusers to open their eyes and see the harm they've caused. It worked with Zaccheus. When someone is regularly and actively causing harm, they have become "bad" by the temperament of their bad nature, according to Jesus, et al.
But regular folks who mess up, make mistakes, do wrong out of a temporary foolishness or weakness but who are capable of repenting and turning away from harming others (or themselves, or God's good creation), they're a regular person who has done a bad thing.
I'd say that's the biblical and rational way of understanding that distinction.
If you say so. Positioning yourself as “rational” based on your decision to retroactively redefine words to fit your 21st century progressive worldview, isn’t automatically placing those who don’t do as you do in the “not rational” category?
Gotcha, it’s kind of cute that you think that you have no preconceived notions or human traditions to color your eisegesus, and the you miraculously have some cold, strictly rational approach. Arrogance and hubris on display.
The problem I have is that I do understand your self aggrandizing nonsense.
Still no answers to my questions here, or what I’ve asked for at my blog.
This isn’t impatience, this is merely noting that my answers to Dans questions accumulate along with my responses to his nonsense. While my answers and responses are mostly ignored.
But Dan's questions keep coming.
C
Craig, ENTIRELY missing the point and failing to understand what I ACTUALLY said:
My point exactly, you haven't done the work, pulled this out of your ass and expect others to agree with your unsupported hunch.
Bullshit, son. I HAVE done the work. For 50+ years and all of my adult life, I have been immersed in the teachings found in the Bible and very specifically, the teachings from Jesus, my Lord. I HAVE done the work. What I haven't done is a word count, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize (as I literally just did - thus you missing the point entirely) that there just ARE objectively thousands of words/MANY passages over and over and over from the words of Jesus where he addresses the poverty/beloved community and grace points on the positive side and the abuses and dangerous tendencies of wealth and oppression and the clear distinction between Jesus' way of love and grace and the Pharisees' way of arrogance, power, wealth and abuse.
That is a solid objective reality. The ONLY thing I haven't done is to complete a specific word count so that I know that there are exactly 3244 words in passages where Jesus tackles these issues and under 200 words where Jesus promotes or mentions anything like your little human theories of "sinful natures" or "atonement" or "inerrancy," etc, etc, etc.
You misread and thereby miss the point and then go on to ignore the question which has ONLY one right answer.
As I scroll this thread, I begin to understand why Dan doesn’t respond to individual comments in a sub thread.
Because the way he does it allows him to ignore questions, leave things hanging, and ignore substantive responses to his crap.
But if he cherry picks a line or two to complain about and tacks the comment onto the end, it’s a great way to divert attention from his failures.
It's not "our" position you refuse to acknowledge. It's the truth of Scripture you refuse to acknowledge. What makes you think there was any death or suffering prior to Adam's sin, which is the fact upon which the rest of Scripture hinges? On what basis do you insist that anything prior to that event acted as things have acted since? On this basis: because that's what you want to insist was the case. End of story. You have no reason to suspect this, you just want to reject the historical record of Genesis because your peers will make fun of you, and you want to posture as "too sophisticated" to buy into history as Genesis records it.
I am not ashamed or embarrassed of/by Scripture, Jesus or the Father.
(Matthew 10:33, Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26, Romans 1:16, 2 Timothy 1:8)
There's nothing "silly sounding" about the likelihood that creation operated differently prior to Adam's sin than it has following it.
Tell me, though...how exactly have you observed creation prior to Adam's sin? I'll wait here while you pretend again you're justified in condescending.
re: "Word count is not how biblical interpretation works..."
It IS if the human theory being suggested is ENTIRELY ABSENT from the teachings of Jesus. Word count is NOT a definitive be-all, end-all way of understanding biblical texts BUT it is a vital tool to understanding (at least potentially) how important an idea is to a speaker. Hell, YOU ALL think this all the time. "Well, yeah, sure, Jesus never ONE TIME mentions homosexuality or condemns gay folks or transgender folks... BUT, it's important to him nonetheless, because Israel had a couple of rules to the Israeli people thousands of years ago that I personally think applies to all sorts of scenarios today! So, of COURSE, Jesus cares about it!!"
Also, you all (conservative religionists) are the ones who regularly point out that "it's JESUS Christ! who mentions hell more than anyone else!" Would that you would let THAT bit of eisegesis and bad reasoning go!
"The thing about stupidly false claims written down in public is that anybody can see it's a stupidly false claim and that I've never said anything like that."
You say it constantly with every condescending dismissal of that which you insist isn't "rational", "reasonable", "reality" and the like. Your opinion of earth is based on your subjective opinion about it. Your subjective opinion is so far from evidence that it can't be seen with a Hubble telescope.
Praising and thanking God for this world isn't the same as a factual statement that it's "good" or "very good" as it was before the Fall. Currently, as with each other, such descriptions are comparative in nature, not statements of abject fact. We continue to speak of "good" as the word is used by God the Father or Son. That's not the same as Dan suggesting some gay transsexual is "good" because it doesn't litter. Another example is your final words in your comment are not good expressions of reality:
"...this good creation we have on this earth."
Earth is part of creation. Creation is not part of earth.
Craig:
Still no answers to my questions here, or what I’ve asked for at my blog.
I've answered your little question at your blog, multiple times. I provided the copy and pasted words where I asked you the question. All that I DIDN'T do is provide the time stamp and that's fine if you want to delete stuff even after I've literally answered your question and provided the literal quote in question, but just stop it, you're looking delusional.
Like this:
As I scroll this thread, I begin to understand why Dan doesn’t respond to individual comments in a sub thread.
Almost ALL I've done on this thread is respond to your collective individual comments. I've answered your questions collectively and explained how you were misunderstanding my actual positions. Again, you're sounding delusional, good man.
My mistake, I misunderstood Craig's point and apologize for that. Here is the quote again:
As I scroll this thread, I begin to understand why Dan doesn’t respond to individual comments in a sub thread.
As I've said before multiple times: I don't care for the sub-thread approach to blog comments. I find it adds confusion, rather than takes away confusion. That is the ACTUAL reason why I do it. I don't complain that you may do it, I just don't prefer it and don't find them helpful.
You see, when you apologize for making mistakes, it's a good thing and helps conversations. I made a mistake and now have admitted it. No big deal.
AND when you stop making assumptions or offering false guesses as to why someone is saying/doing something, that, too, is a good thing. I'd encourage you to do that, apologize for the false claim and just move on, just as I modeled. No harm no foul.
Speaking of false claims not based in reality, Craig:
Don't just make a wild, unfounded claim, and demand that your claim be accepted as objective.
That you apparently don't KNOW the sheer volume and centrality of these themes to the teachings of Jesus (either don't know or can't bring yourself to admit it) speaks very poorly of your biblical education. I KNOW as a fact that money, wealth, poverty, power, abuses of power, oppression, etc are HEAVILY central to the literal teachings of Jesus precisely because my conservative family and church TAUGHT me that, as they taught me to take Jesus' teachings seriously and you simply can't just ignore the centrality to these teachings in Jesus' actual words. It's part of the reason my conservative church was so concerned about visiting homeless shelters and doing missions... even if it was from a place of conservative patronizing rather than digging deeply into Jesus' actual teachings.
Because I know about all these texts (and seriously, how can you be a Christian and NOT know!?) that I was taught by conservatives and told to take them seriously, that's a large part of what pushed me away from conservative religiosity... that they weren't taking the centrality of this literal Good news to the literal poor and marginalized as seriously as the texts demanded.
It's objectively factual because it's observable. Just go look, if you truly don't know this! I can't believe that at some level, you DO recognize it... if nothing else, I've been bringing it up with you and yours for decades now!
Heck, just look at ALL the posts I have on the theme of "Bible and Economics..." (three pages worth... don't stop at the bottom of page 1!)
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=bible+and+economics
Or how about the "red letter/green letter" series that I did that painstakingly went through nearly the whole book of Luke separating out Jesus' words that had something to do with wealth and poverty to one degree or another...?
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/search?q=red+letter%2FJesus
Of course, as a serious lover and student of the teachings of Jesus, I have looked into this a great deal. I'm just surprised how you appear to have somehow missed it!
Craig:
Jesus literally makes the entire case for why He came, died, and was resurrected from the Hebrew Scriptures, the Torah, the Law, and the Prophets. How much more directly could Jesus have tied Himself and His ministry to the Hebrew Scriptures?
WHAT? Jesus, in a conversation with Jewish people about theology, relied heavily on Jesus' scripture! Wowza, who'da thunk it?
Thanks, Captain Obvious.
What exactly do you think that proves, if anything? That Jesus was promoting your "inerrant bible" human theory?
That Jesus placed high value on the OT? Cool. Me, too. What of it?
Just to give some clarity to something I pointed out earlier about my conservative church learning: I didn't start OUT specifically studying Jesus' teachings on wealth and poverty, on concerns about oppression in Jesus' teachings, on Jesus' pacifism/peacemaking. It's just that it was obvious that those were all VERY clear themes often found in Jesus' teachings. To their credit, my ultra-conservative/traditionalist Southern Baptist preachers and teachers didn't even TRY to deny it. Rather, for the most part, they tended to ignore it. "Yes, yes, it's there, of course, it's there... but it's not like it's a central thing to Christianity!" That kind of thing.
It was Jesus' specific, prolific and obvious teachings on wealth and poverty, "good news for the poor" and peacemaking that were my first cracks in my allegiance to the traditionalists' way of thinking. They were fine with and even supported me studying those aspects of Jesus' teachings... as far as it went.
They would also just emphasize to me: Just don't forget the "main points" of "christianity" (as they defined it): Atonement, Fallen Nature of Humanity, our Need for a Blood Payment to "save us" from "hell..." Oh, "and inerrancy, we mustn't forget inerrancy or our whole house of cards falls apart!"
Which, they weren't wrong, but still.
For what it's worth.
500 comments across three posts (not counting mostly redacted discussions at Dan's Blog of Lies and Perversions) and Dan has yet to tell me what any of the sin nature verses in the first of the three actually mean if not what a plain reading of them conveys. And instead, he'll continue to clutter up the posts with his usual obfuscations, such as pretending he was raised by conservatives, none of whom ever visit to back him up, and given his penchant for lying, this is somehow proof that his understanding is pure and "Christian". How boring.
You literally made it abundantly clear that you hadn’t done a word search, assumed you were correct, and assumed that I’d agree with your assumption.
Even now you acknowledge that you have no actual knowledge of whether or not your claim is True, you just assert that it is because “”50years”.
Prove your claim or not, I don’t care. Because you’ll put some leading question into some AI and regurgitate whatever it tells you.
Again with your games. What “the question” do you think I ignored this time?
Or is this just one more example of you needing an excuse to not answer?
C
No, it’s not. It’s just some BS nonsense that you’ve invented.
I’ll see if you even respond, but I’ve already addressed this idiocy in principle.
I do appreciate how you take some unnamed bogeyman and simply decide that you can do some guilt by association BS and really think you’ve scored.
C
I’ve read your comments and you’re simply lying. You chose not to provide the information you were asked to provide and now I get this bullshit.
This thing you do where you demand and demand from others, then refuse a simple request (a request only made so that I could properly answer the question you claimed I hadn’t answered) but instead of a simple, direct response for clarification, you play bullshit games.
I know you don’t answer questions generally, aren’t here, and made up a bullshit excuse to hide behind at my blog.
Fine, I guess we can see the fruit from your graceless tree.
Nope, just pointing out that Jesus was clear the the OT contains everything that they needed to understand Him and why He came. That you choose to impose limits Jesus didn’t is your problem.
And the reality, as anybody can look back and see, is that I've told you multiple times in multiple ways. I don't know how to hold your hand and help you see the quite literal answers I've quite literally given to you multiple times.
Seriously boys, do something about the reading comprehension problem you have.
Dan
Dan’s clearly moved into the simply taking over the entire thread and babbling about random B: phase.
Which explains the litany of unanswered questions in this thread alone.
Lots of excuses, a bit of self aggrandizement, still no answers.
Nothing new here. Just more of Dan ignoring the log.
Ending with Dan offering himself as his own authority.
I’m simply done answering Dan questions if he’s not going to do what he demands of others.
Marshal ridiculously and utterly falsely said...
"Dan has yet to tell me what any of the sin nature verses in the first of the three actually mean if not what a plain reading of them conveys...."
For the dozenth (ish) time.
Given the context of Jesus' ongoing relationship/ conflicts with the arrogant Pharisees, who are part of the oppressor class, confident in their morality, and in light of the rich young man who perhaps sincerely but still arrogantly said he's kept all these rules since he was a child, it seems likely, if not certain, that Jesus talked about "no one does good" as a rebuke to the arrogant Pharisees and the rich and powerful.
Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. I explained all this multiple times in multiple ways. Now look, you are free to say, "I don't find that a compelling explanation," but nobody cares that you don't find it compelling. It is a legitimate explanation, it is a plausible explanation, and it is an explanation in the real world that many people hold and that I hold. Whether or not you get it or agree with it, it IS an explanation. You are free to disagree with the explanation but you're not free to lie and say that I didn't give a reason, because that's just stupidly, idiotically, delusionally false, as anyone can see.
Dan
Once again, we don't have "human theories". We have the teachings of Scripture. You pervert them or eliminate them if they don't abide your marxist liberation theology.
Since Dan is keen on word searches, I asked Google how many times "Father" is used in the Gospel of John (the most numerous was here). It said, 100-120 times. (The disparity, I believe, had to do with the differences of referencing God the Father depending upon which Bible one might use, such as NIV, ESV, KJV, etc. Where one might say "Father", or "heavenly Father", another might say "God".) In Matt, 44X. In Luke, 17X. In Mark, it first said 1X, but then added another reference to God the Father in an instruction to His disciples. I don't know why it didn't just say 2X, as the 2nd mention didn't seem to me distinct from the first)
Then I asked "how many times does Jesus use the word "poor" in the Gospel of John. The answer was "one time". In Matt, 4X. In Mark, 2X. In Luke (and this was surprising, for I expected a lot more) 4X.
What should we make of this disparity between Jesus' use of these two words? The correct answer is: we shouldn't make ANYTHING of it. It doesn't diminish the importance of any teaching about the poor, nor inflate the importance of the teachings about God the Father. To use Dan's argument, "it's just the way it is" and of no significance. What would be of significance would be for Jesus to speak of either as being of greater significance than the other. This also follows Dan's guide for understanding the words of Scripture or Jesus/God the Father. If it doesn't say one issue is more important than another, Dan has no legit reason for supposing Jesus cared about one issue more than another. And given the arc of the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelations, no teaching is more important than the restoration of God/mankind relationship. Our concern for our fellow man, as important as that is, isn't point.
More excuses for avoiding simple, direct, answers to questions. Just verbose, vague, blather unmoored from anything that we’re supposed to wade through and match random nonsense to a specific question.
Just more of not living up to the standard you demand of others.
Not nearly as much as we are concerned about your unwillingness to directly answer questions, obfuscate, and celebrate yourself.
It’s filibuster time instead of answer time.
I fail to see why Dan should demand a level of respect that he doesn’t show anyone else.
Why do we write long, specific responses and answers when he doesn’t engage with them, and ask questions when he doesn’t answer them?
C
I'm gonna guess you're referring to John 3:1–7, which is a great passage I wish I had thought of to add to my list of citations. To be "born again" is to have replaced one's sin nature with a new nature in Christ. As I looked at this, it reminded me of other verses which I then found and also stand as evidence of man's sin nature given how it speaks to renewal and transformation. It's absurd that Scripture doesn't speak of man's sin nature as a real thing, which again, is the reason we are imperfect.
Atonement is NOT "entirely absent" from the teachings of Jesus. Jesus explicitly mentioned the shedding of His blood during the Last Supper in Matthew 26:28, stating that His blood of the covenant was "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". And as noted in Hebrews 9:22, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins".
But Dan needs to be told hundreds of times in order to get the point of Christ's birth. I can just imagine Ma Trabue yelling at Dan, "How many times do I have to tell you not to..." only to have Dan brush her off because she only said it once.
I don't give a flying rat's ass about these alleged "conservatives" with whom Dan claims to have associated or by whom he was raised. They were either as stupid as he is...for how could good teachers not solidified the Truth in Dan's pointy head that he would stray to marxist liberation theology?...or Dan wasn't paying attention, too stupid to understand that which is clear.
Dan likes to speak of those with whom we'll never get the chance to converse in order to validate Dan's autobiography, nor will we ever get the chance to do as much with all those "progressives" who think as Dan, which, if they exist, would only clutter our blogs with more idiot idol worshipers like Dan.
I've looked at all three of Dan's laughable "Bible and Economics" posts, many of which include passages simply because they mentioned wealth or poverty without either being the point of the passage. I've missed nothing. I simply have better understanding. I don't ignore all the very wealthy servants of God, such as Abraham, Joseph, David and Solomon. Job was made wealthier after his trials than he was before...by God. Then there were Jesus' friends and associates, like Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Mary of Bethany, Martha, and Lazarus, Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene, Susanna and Joanna, women who traveled with Jesus and "provided for him out of their own means" (Luke 8:3) and Zacchaeus.
Mostly unrelated, but this is interesting...
Trump has a long and well documented history of doing good things to people, usually without any fanfare or publicity.
Yeah, several serial killers had a history of being polite and doing good things. Doesn't mean they weren't bad people. Of course, in their case, they were probably sociopaths with limited capacity for self regulation.
But then, Craig has repeatedly ruled out any sympathy for those who do wrong while mentally ill. Speaking of the mother who killed her children, wasn't it Craig who said:
She strangled her three kids. Strangled them. One by one. I can’t let this one go. It’s one of the most evil things you can do. I don’t care what set it off.
So, THAT is evil and EVEN IF there were mental illness involved, Craig is comfortable calling it Evil. I guess nuance is only needed when it's a white criminal billionaire sexual predator is involved. In THAT case, you ceaselessly give him the benefit of the doubt, but not in the case of his woman with mental illness.
Hard to figure. Maybe it's just an example of some of that wonderful inconsistencies so-called conservatives have embraced.
Craig, once again, reading words and reaching ass-backwards conclusions, in spite of reality and whatnot, said:
You literally made it abundantly clear that you hadn’t done a word search, assumed you were correct, and assumed that I’d agree with your assumption.
? This is SO strange. I LITERALLY said nothing of the sort. I said I hadn't done a "word count," not that I hadn't done a word search. Those are two different things. The problem being, for those with reading comprehension deficits, is that it's NOT LIKE I'm doing a simple word search like "homosexual" to learn ALL the times that Jesus came out against homosexuals. We're talking about teachings of wealth and poverty, oppression, the poor and marginalized, the powerful oppressors such as (but not limited to) the Pharisees... It's not like one can google a simple one or two set of words and be done. Also, one would have to reach words and texts in context to get the full meaning.
Now, having said that, this is PRECISELY what I've done more than once, as you can see if you read my links or just recall some of the many conversations we've had on this topic for decades. Which leads to...
Even now you acknowledge that you have no actual knowledge of whether or not your claim is True,
No. I do not. And why not? Because my claim is objectively true. Jesus observably spoke about issues of poverty and wealth, oppression and the realm of God, the Pharisees and other oppressors, etc, HUNDREDS of time. That is observable on my blog where I did the work FOR you. As I said, what I HAVEN'T done is establish a precise count of incidences where Jesus addresses these topics. Is it 430 distinct instances? 650? That is more difficult to accomplish and I haven't done THAT. But that is not the same as saying, as you stupidly falsely claimed, "Even now you acknowledge that you have no actual knowledge of whether or not your claim is True."
Read for understanding, right?
We who study Jesus' words and teachings (and I've been giving you WIDE latitude in assuming you are quite familiar with the literal and direct and clear teachings of Christ your Lord - maybe that was my fault!) KNOW that these terms and ideas from Jesus are a regular, repeated and ongoing set of positions and teachings from Jesus that are pretty clear to all (well, except for those literalists who LEAP at opportunities to NOT take Jesus literally!). There are dozens/hundreds of such passages, whatever the number is, it's clearly in the dozens (which eventually reach thousands of words, but I'm talking about passages now, lest you fail to understand) of times.
Likewise, Jesus talking about your pet human theories does not happen AT ALL, not in any direct way, and IF you really give some latitude towards reading into texts POSSIBLE passages that MIGHT be touching on your little human theories, that is dozens of WORDS coming from a handful or two of passages. Again, this is objectively measurable and those who are familiar with Jesus' teachings are glad to acknowledge that.
So, once again, if you can't read my words and get accurate conclusions, then maybe humble yourselves in assuming that YOU mortals are the ones who are rightly understanding Jesus' ideas on topics he didn't/barely talked about.
Dan’s big on some theoretical word count, I’m going to suggest something else. Let’s look at the first and last things surrounding Jesus’ time on earth.
The very first thing we hear is “Call His name Jesus because He will save His people from their sins.”
The very last thing Jesus tells His disciples is, “44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.”
He doesn’t mention the poor and oppressed, He is specific that the Gospel they are to share is that He was the fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures by His death and resurrection, and “repentance for the forgiveness of sins”.
If the poor were really such a big priority, you’d think they’d have made the beginning or the end of the story. But that’s not what Jesus left His Disciples with at all.
Because the last words one speaks to those important to them probably aren’t that important because it’s only a few words.
C
Well that’s interesting.
It’s a reasonable question, I think, too bad Dan will never answer it.
C
It’s always hilarious when your proof texts contain an apparent reference to some sort of severe punishment. Trees cut down and burned up because they didn’t produce good fruit. Seems harsh and excessive.
C
Good point, it’s clearly not “entirely absent “, but I’m done treating Dan's comments seriously.
C
I have no hope that I’ll find answers here anytime soon, but I’ll be mostly checked out of this until next week.
Because my granddaughter is way more interesting than listening to Dan make excuses and talk about himself.
C
I was going to simply rebuke the stupidity of that very lame attempt to make the words of Jesus mean something other than what they convey, but then I decided to take another path. I used AI to analyze your argument for its obvious flaws and it almost matched my position to a "T". It is as follows, beginning with your words in italics:
AI Mode Conversation:
I can absolutely help you dismantle and evaluate the logic of an argument.
Please paste or type the text you would like me to analyze. To give you the most thorough breakdown, I will evaluate it across these key dimensions:
• The Core Premises: Identifying the foundational assumptions or facts being used.
• The Main Conclusion: Clarifying exactly what the argument is trying to prove.
• Hidden Logical Fallacies: Pointing out any deceptive reasoning, missing evidence, or structural flaws.
• Overall Validity & Strength: Determining if the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
"Given the context of Jesus' ongoing relationship/ conflicts with the arrogant Pharisees, who are part of the oppressor class, confident in their morality, and in light of the rich young man who perhaps sincerely but still arrogantly said he's kept all these rules since he was a child, it seems likely, if not certain, that Jesus talked about "no one does good" as a rebuke to the arrogant Pharisees and the rich and powerful."
NOTE: You corrupted the argument. Jesus said, in all three Gospel in which the story appears "No one IS good but God alone"....not "no one does good". What is it you keep saying about reading comprehension???
Here is an analysis of your argument. You have constructed a historical-contextual argument that attempts to narrow down the intended audience and rhetorical purpose of a specific phrase attributed to Jesus.
1. The Core Premises
Your argument ("Your" being, you, Dan Trabue's argument)relies on three foundational premises:
• Premise A: Jesus had an ongoing conflict with the Pharisees, whom you define as a self-righteous "oppressor class" highly confident in their own morality.
• Premise B: The interaction with the "rich young man" (who claimed to have perfectly kept all religious laws since childhood) demonstrates a broader cultural trend of arrogance among the wealthy and powerful.
• Premise C: Jesus used the phrase "no one does good" (a concept heavily tied to Old Testament poetry like Psalm 14 and Psalm 53, and later popularized in the New Testament epistles).
2. The Main Conclusion
• Conclusion: It is highly likely, if not completely certain, that Jesus used this phrase specifically as a targeted rebuke against the arrogant elite (the Pharisees and the wealthy) rather than as a universal statement about all of humanity.
3. Hidden Logical Fallacies & Analytical Flaws
While your argument is historically grounded, it contains a few logical gaps and fallacies that prevent it from being "certain":
🛑 The Fallacy of Composition (Extrapolation)
• The Flaw: You take a specific, acknowledged dynamic (Jesus vs. the self-righteous elite) and conclude that every sweeping moral statement he made must be filtered exclusively through that single dynamic. (Ain't THAT the truth!) Because he rebuked the rich and the Pharisees, it does not mathematically follow that this specific phrase was meant only for them.
🛑 Contextual Confirmation Bias (Cherry-Picking Context)
• The Flaw: You lean heavily on the "rich young man" context, but you skip over how that specific interaction actually concludes. When Jesus says it is nearly impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom, his own disciples are shocked and ask, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus responds, "With man this is impossible..." (Matthew 19:25-26). By expanding the dilemma to "man" as a whole, the broader biblical text indicates Jesus was making a universal point about human capability, not just a localized insult to the upper class.
🛑 The False Dilemma (Either/Or)
• The Flaw: The argument assumes a binary: either the phrase is a universal theological truth or it is a targeted rebuke of the Pharisees. In reality, it can easily be both. Jesus frequently used universal truths (e.g., "no one is good except God alone") precisely to shatter the specific, localized illusions of those who thought they were the exception to the rule.
4. Overall Validity & Strength
• Verdict: Logically Weak but Rhetorically Plausible.
The argument is invalid in a strict logical sense because the conclusion does not inevitably follow from the premises; it is entirely possible for Jesus to fight with the Pharisees while simultaneously holding a universal view of human shortfalls.
However, as a historical-literary hypothesis, your argument has real merit. Jesus frequently aimed his sharpest theological barbs at those who sat in positions of religious and systemic power. Therefore, while it is structurally flawed to claim it is "certain," it is highly reasonable to argue that the primary rhetorical function of the phrase in the Gospels was to level the moral playing field and humble the arrogant.
Would you like to explore how different theological traditions interpret this exact phrase, or would you like to tighten the wording of this argument to make it logically airtight?
I chose to tighten the parameters by adding relevant details of the story. I said:
"Your analysis seems to ignore that the "rich young man" directed the word "good" to Jesus. How then can Jesus' response stand as a rebuke of the Pharisees, when none of the three Gospels which tells this story suggests the Pharisees were even present? What's more, Christ turns to His disciples afterwards to answer their questions which do not involve the Pharisees. Adding these points to your analysis, how do you respond?"
Your pushback is completely correct, and it exposes the exact textual boundaries that make the original argument break down.
By introducing these two specific narrative facts—that the ruler directed the word "good" directly to Jesus and that the Pharisees were entirely absent from the scene—your analysis successfully demonstrates that the original hypothesis is built on a historical conflation (the fallacy of mixing two different storylines or groups because they share similar themes).
If we inject your two textual observations back into the logic, the response shifts significantly:
1. The Dynamic of "Good" Was Directed at Jesus, Not the Pharisees
In Matthew 19, Mark 10, and Luke 18, the dialogue begins because the young ruler flippantly calls Jesus "Good Teacher".
• Jesus' response ("Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone") is structurally reacting to how the young man defines moral goodness, not how the Pharisees do.
• As commentators frequently note, Jesus is intentionally exposing a flaw in the young man's worldview. The ruler views "goodness" as a humanly achievable plateau reached by keeping rules. By responding this way, Jesus challenges him: If you call me good, are you recognizing me as God, or are you lowering the definition of 'good' to just a flattering human title?
2. The Total Absence of the Pharisees
Your observation that the text explicitly shows Jesus turning to His disciples afterward completely severs the immediate connection to the Pharisees.
• In the narrative flow of all three Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees are not lurking in the background of this conversation.
• When the young man walks away sad, Jesus does not look around and say, "See how arrogant those rulers are?" Instead, he looks specifically at his chosen inner circle and delivers a sobering message about wealth. When the disciples panic ("Who then can be saved?"), Jesus applies the weight of human spiritual inability to everyone, telling his own followers that salvation is humanly impossible but made possible by God.
Revised Structural Verdict
Your added constraints completely collapse the assertion that this specific statement was certainly a rebuke directed at the Pharisees.
To maintain the original premise in light of your points, one would have to argue that the rich young man was a typological proxy for the Pharisaical worldview (since Luke notes he was a "ruler", likely a synagogue leader or magistrate heavily influenced by that legalistic culture). However, even that requires reading between the lines. Taken strictly as the text is written, Jesus' words stand as a direct, deeply intimate pastoral challenge to a sincere but self-deluded seeker, followed by an institutional warning to His own disciples.
I then decided to question the robot's use of the word "flippantly" and the result is as follows:
"On what basis do you suggest the rich young ruler was being "flippant" in referring to Jesus as "good teacher" rather than demonstrating sincere respect?"
You are absolutely right to challenge the word "flippant." It was a poor choice of words on my part, and it does not accurately capture the historical or textual reality of the scene.
In fact, the Gospels explicitly show that the man's approach was characterized by sincere respect and urgency, not flippancy. Mark 10:17 vividly notes that the man ran up to Jesus and knelt before Him—actions that a wealthy ruler would never take in public for a regular teacher unless he was deeply serious and desperate for an answer.
Rather than flippancy, historic commentaries point out that his usage of "good teacher" was likely casual, routine flattery, or conceptually shallow—but entirely sincere from his perspective.
Scholars and commentators point to three reasons why Jesus pauses to interrogate this respectful title:
1. The Historical Context of the Title
In first-century Judaism, the title "Good Teacher" (Didaskale agathe) was practically unprecedented. Rabbis were addressed as "Teacher" or "Master," but (and this is very interesting) it was strictly reserved for God alone to be called "Good". By combining the two, the young man was inventing a custom-made, highly exalted compliment to show immense respect to Jesus.
2. A Superficial View of "Goodness"
Jesus’ pushback ("Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone") suggests that while the young man was respectful, his vocabulary outpaced his actual theology. He viewed "goodness" as a human status—a level of achievement reached by superior rule-keeping (sounds like Dan). Jesus challenges him to think about what he is saying: If you are calling me inherently good, you are implicitly calling me God. But if you think I am just a wise human teacher, you shouldn't be using a title that belongs only to the Creator.
3. The Ultimate Test of Words
The tragedy of the narrative is that the man’s respect, while sincere at the start, has boundaries. When the "Good Teacher" commands him to sell his possessions, his submission breaks down. As one biblical analysis notes, his ultimate refusal to obey demonstrates that he did not yet truly grasp or submit to the absolute authority behind the "goodness" he was praising.
Thank you for correcting that characterization. The man was not mocking or lighthearted; he was a deeply sincere, highly respectful seeker who simply didn't understand the depth of his own words.
More importantly, we're left with the same lack of an answer for what Jesus' words ("no one is good except God alone") could mean if not "no one is good but God alone"? Your "answer" is wonderful text-book level sophistry, but not an answer to the question.
And it was interesting that the AI response referred to "good" being reserved for God by the tenets of 1st-Centure Judaism...which suggests that "definition" was understood in Judaism just as Jesus Mark 10:18 asserts it was. If the bot is correct on that, it leads me to wonder how the common man at that time referred to others who did good deeds or kept the law well. Hard to imagine they didn't use the term with the same qualifying understanding as described by both Craig and myself if they used it at all to describe people. But then, I'm a product of the current era, too, and it seems natural to refer to those I like as "good people". That doesn't mean they're good in the true sense of the word as per my Lord and Savior, but merely in comparison to those I don't favor as much.
The problem is that Dan doesn’t realize that the above applies to him as well. Every false claim, every unproven assumption, every lie, every bit of vitriol, all the condescension, the name calling, the BS, the straw men, and all the rest, is available for anyone to see. Which just demonstrates how little grace he extends to others, while demanding and prating about grace regularly.
C
Well, I guess ripping things out of context in order to support a false pretext, and bash Trump is about what I’d expect from you. As is sympathy and support for a mother who slowly murdered her three children one at a time after executing a complex plan to make sure her husband was gone long enough for her to strangle her children. But we also expect you to support women who kill their children.
C
Lots of content, but you know that Dan’s gonna pull two or three snippets out of context and lie about them.
C
Craig...
"Does not the existence of a "new nature" not strongly suggest the existence of an "old nature"? If so, what is the "old nature" that Jesus is replacing with the "new nature"?"
? Jesus is speaking of a change of attitude, a change of life. But he's speaking figuratively. Do you think he's talking about some kind of actual thing like a coat? "He had an old coat but now he's got a new coat?"
It's figurative language referring to a new way of life embracing grace. What do you think it means?
Once again, it seems like y'all are having a hard time with the nuances found in figurative or poetic language. Not every word in the Bible has to be taken literally. Of course you already don't take it literally when it's something that Jesus is saying about poverty or oppression.... So you should get that.
Dan
My bad, I horribly failed to say “word count” rather than word search. Because obviously you could do a “word count” without doing a search of the words to be counted.
Yet while you proudly crow over my small mistake (again apologies for my grievous error), the fact remains that you have (several times) made claims about the number of magic words Jesus used with no proof or “word count “. That you feel that this horrible mistake on my part (for which I apologize) somehow magically absolves your blatant false claims is hilarious.
You simultaneously agree that you have no knowledge of whether your claim is True, then assert that your claim is True anyway simply because you say so. Insane. When you say that something is “objectively true” and only offer yourself as proof, the level of pride, arrogance and hubris is astounding.
Again, you make claims with no proof, yet claim to know that your unproven claim is True.
FYI, the flaw in your methodology is that we have no idea what translation you use, nor how accurately your translation renders the meaning of the original languages.
But you’re too lazy to do the work to prove your claim, so who cares.
My making an error, apologies again, doesn’t mean I don’t understand your tripe. It means that I made an error and apologize for it.
That you built an entire, multi paragraph rant on my error as a way to try to avoid the reality that you can’t prove your claims…
C
As I was responding to Dan‘s comments this morning, I realized what he’s doing when he talks about word count. He started out, making claims about the number of times. Jesus talked about the poor (because we know that the word oppressed does not appear in anything Jesus said) and has continued to add words to his list. It’s almost like he subconsciously believes that if he continues to add enough terms to his nonexistent word, count, that he might be able to justify his claims.
C
Craig, weirdly, said all sorts of stupidly false stuff, including:
You simultaneously agree that you have no knowledge of whether your claim is True,
?? I literally have not done that. It is simply observably factual that issues of economic justice, wealth/poverty, oppression, etc ARE found throughout Jesus' teachings and way more than ANY direct references to your little human theories.
Once again, I ask: Do you truly not recognize this?? It's not really a debate. It's a matter of whether you recognize a measurable reality or not.
By all means, prove your claim. I’ll wait.
C
Because Jesus chose figurative language when He could have chosen literal language. Makes total sense.
C
Craig, reading and failing to understand...
He started out, making claims about the number of times. Jesus talked about the poor (because we know that the word oppressed does not appear in anything Jesus said) and has continued to add words to his list.
If I have time, I'll do a post on my blog emphasizing the way of Grace that Jesus taught consistently, primarily throughout his ministry and how central that Way is to Jesus' teachings.
I will add that, of course, Jesus was a Jew, not a "christian" which didn't exist. The various religions of "christianity" are a bunch of human attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus - sometimes with very little emphasis on the teachings of Jesus. For the most part, most of these christian religions are the result of a range of humans espousing various theories with more or less (less, quite often) emphasis on various biblical interpretations.
All of that to say, that Jesus did not come to found a "religion," those were the efforts of humans and their traditions. Jesus came, instead, teaching a Way of Grace.
And, as we see consistently throughout Jesus' teachings, this Way began with Good News for the poor and marginalized and oppressed*. Of course, that is NOT saying that the Good News Jesus taught excluded the wealthy and powerful... just that it consistently BEGINS with the poor and marginalized, who Jesus said literally were Him. "What you do for the least, you do FOR ME..."
But it's not some arcane sect of spooky rituals and horror stories to tell children... it was NOT a religion or a set of rules. It was the Way of Grace... the Way of Love, which Jesus says is the primary rule. And even in that, it's not a hard-edged, piling weights on the backs of people list of RULINGS to adhere to fastidiously. It was love. It was grace, and kindness, welcome and inclusion. EVEN including inviting the wealthy oppressors to join in, as they sell their shit and give it to the poor and follow him.
So, I'm not talking about a word list. I'm talking about an idea... a chain of ideas that ALL relate back to this Way of Grace and Love. That can be found throughout the Gospel stories and teachings of Jesus, A to Z.
"Atonement," "sin natures," "hell," "legalism," "inerrancy" and a range of human legalistic rulings? Not so much. When such ideas DO come up, they're generally in the negative sense, as in the contrasting of the Pharisees/rich/powerful's way of Legalism and oppressive power IN CONTRAST to Jesus' way of Grace. They are the negative example (and target of Jesus' wrath repeatedly) that prove Jesus' way of Grace.
So, your legalistic (ironically) demands for Word Counts are missing the point, Craig. If you can't see these constant themes of grace, love, welcome, good news for the poor, warnings for the rich oppressors, warnings against legalism in favor of grace, etc... if you can't see them and recognize that these ARE the primary, central teachings of Jesus, I don't know how to help you.
Did you review my "red/green letters" blog entry? It's all right there.
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2019/09/red-letterjesus-teachings.html
Craig, instead of simply answering the question with a direct answer, said instead:
Because Jesus chose figurative language when He could have chosen literal language. Makes total sense.
I repeat:
It's figurative language referring to a new way of life embracing grace. What do you think it means?
Do you imagine this mythical "sin nature" to be an actual Thing... somewhere in our body or mind or soul, we have this "sin nature" sitting around like a cancer? Do you imagine that we have this mythical Thing called an "Old Nature" that is a physical/metaphysical actual THING?
You'll have to explain what you're even talking about if you want to make a case that this isn't just another obviously metaphorical figure of speech so common to rabbis of the day.
Any student of Judaism knows that Jewish teachers always used literary techniques like figurative language, metaphors, symbolism, and analogies in their teachings. Jesus and Paul—Jewish rabbis themselves—also utilized these and other literary methods, often overlooked by Western non-Jewish readers.
https://eitan.bar/articles/jews-jesus-teachings-hell/
It’s literally in your comment, it’s right there for you to read. Since I use the sub comments, all you had to do was scroll up a tiny bit.
Of course you don’t provide any evidence of this, you just assert.
Blah, blah, blah, unrelated bobbers, and self promotion.
If your posts weren’t convincing the first time, it’s unlikely anything has changed.
You’re the one advocating for word count being the True test of importance, I’m merely asking you to prove your claims. If you don’t prove the claims you make, why would anyone take you seriously?
C
It's not a matter of whether or not those rhetorical devices were used. It's a matter of whether or not a particular verse, passage or concept is actually one of them, rather than that which is meant to be taken as written. You throw around this argument as if doing so absolves you from your obligation to support your claim about a given verse, passage or concept...in this case, our man's sin nature, which is referenced and thus affirmed many times throughout Scripture.
Moreover, it does not follow that because one of those literary devices were used (metaphor, figurative language, analogy, hyperbole), it's use means the subject being discussed isn't an actual fact...in this case, man's sin nature.
So we again come to the problem you've never resolved after insisting you would were I to provide you with examples: if man's sin nature isn't a reality, then what do any of the verse I've provided (again, not comprehensive list of all references to the concept) actually mean. What are they actually saying? Of what are they metaphorical references? Figurative references?
If I say, "Dan whines like a little bitch", am I suggesting you're howling like a female puppy? No. I'm clearly saying you're complaining, pouting or contradicting in a petulant manner.
But if I'm saying you're complaining, and you object to that characterization, I can't just say I was being figurative or metaphorical without explaining what I'm really saying by saying "you're complaining".
The concept of man's sin nature is a Scriptural fact...a reality...a teaching about the human condition. I've provided "objective proof" of this more directly and specifically than you have to support your "little human theories" about "the way of grace", and your response thus far as NOT been the true and actual meaning of any of the verses. It's been convoluted "Nyuh uhs". And that's an unabashed manifestation of your sin nature showing.
"So, THAT is evil and EVEN IF there were mental illness involved, Craig is comfortable calling it Evil."
Really??? You're going to question or reject the use of the term "evil" in this case because of an alleged mental illness??? Why wouldn't the typical human being not be "comfortable" saying what the act truly and factually is? The condition of one's mental health doesn't have anything to do with it? The act is evil.
And rather than a "white billionaire sexual predator" (whoever THAT is), let's speak of your favored black marxist fake Christian preacher whose sexual predation was confirmed by his best friend. I guess "nuance" is only needed when it's a marxist rapist, adulterer, sexual abuser who accomplished next to nothing which made any positive difference in the lives of black people.
The earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, dust storms, sub-zero cold snaps, flooding, deserts, lightning strikes, cancers, viruses, droughts, carnivorous animals, disease spreading insects....
It's amazing. You'll even ignore all that's evil and cursed about earth so as to pretend it's the most beautiful world in the world (H/T: Harry Nillson) and just so "good".
Someone like you, so lacking in character (due to your overactive sin nature) has no business judging the character of anyone or anything.
"Did you review my "red/green letters" blog entry? It's all right there."
I did. And it's just as convoluted, pretentious and dependent upon your personal marxist subjectivity as is your three-part "Bible and Economics" laugher. Neither does anything to prove your position is more sound than the traditional Christian understanding of Scripture. It's just absurd liberation theology..."progressive" "Christianity"...which ignores and/or rejects what's most important, and replaces it with what you prefer it should say and mean.
I responded that way because your unproven hunch wasn’t worth anything more.
C
No one is overlooking anything, the fact that some rabbis sometimes used figurative language does not mean that this particular instance is one of those times.
You made a specific, direct claim about this example, so your “proof” needs to be specific to this example.
C
What Dan has taught me is that it doesn’t matter what I write, or how much, he’s simply never going to do anything more than pick one thing and go off on a tangent. It’s simply Dan playing rhetorical steamroller. He’s gonna say what he wants, and he’s gonna offer himself as his proof.
I see no reason to do anything but respond as Dan does. Zero to a few answers no matter how many questions, random diversions whenever I want, and simply announce that what I say is reality.
I may just copy/paste Dan’s comments and run them through AI for all the good it’ll do.
C
Indeed, Craig. Dan's routine of citing something which speaks to the use of figurative, metaphorical, hyperbolic and/or other rhetorical styles is meant to imply that which he refuses to abide is one of those, which carries the implication that there's some other more accurate understanding he can't provide with any supportive evidence to cement the claim. It's just a cheap dodge. And as you suggest, it doesn't matter what some rabbis say, what other people might say or how a particular style might of common usage. What matters is the verse on the table and how he could prove it means something other than a plain reading would rationally infer, with an actual evidence-based argument to support the claim.
Dan calls it creation, but I’ve never heard him assent to anything sort of creation narrative that involves YHWH creating ex nihlo all that exists.
I just re-read Dan’s post, and I fail to see anything except Dan asserting that his hunches about Scripture must be accepted as objective fact, with no actual evidence beyond Dan saying so. Nothing really changes with Dan.
For Dan:
https://www.str.org/w/is-jesus-the-social-justice-champion-of-progressives-?
What a coincidence, Glenn! I had just completed looking into that very subject!
Great minds think alike!
But, but, there’s more total words about the poor and oppressed which is what is really much more important.
The first thing we hear about Jesus tells us why He came, and the final instructions to the Apostles talk about sin not poverty. But, none of that matters because Dan says so.
Glenn's little link to mortals in his human traditions starts with...
Progressive Christians often present a truncated portrait of Jesus, highlighting the parts of his ministry that fit their emphasis on social reform. In their view, Jesus was a social justice warrior who stood in solidarity with the poor and marginalized, challenged unjust systems and structures of power, and called his followers to pursue love, inclusion, and liberation.
And where you all irrationally think, contrary to ALL the glut of evidence, that we are truncating Jesus' words. But the reality is that we recognize Jesus as a God who is exceptionally concerned for the poor and marginalized, precisely because of the great volume of consistent teachings with his quite literal emphasis on social justice, human rights, and concern for the poor and marginalized. Once again it's not liberal theology that drove me (and people like me) from Jesus. It's Jesus that drove me/us from conservative human traditions. Just as a point of fact.
I'll read more but it really is a shitty beginning of an essay with multiple hard strikes before they even start. I've come to expect that low shallow level of reasoning from the so-called "stand to reason" fellows.
Dan
Okay, so your little bitty article (that's stretching it, but we'll call it an article for now) begins with this little unsupported bitter nothing:
Progressive Christians often present a truncated portrait of Jesus, highlighting the parts of his ministry that fit their emphasis on social reform.
They THEN proceed to provide an extremely lightweight bit of shallow "reasoning" that begins with...
It’s also worth noting that Jesus says a lot about the kingdom (he refers to it more than 80 times).
and ends with...
Even so, the kingdom is not an earthly domain. He wasn’t trying to overturn political systems, undo injustice, or free the Jews...
Jesus explains, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world..."
WHILE, at the same time, they forget to mention (perhaps they're just not familiar with it?) one of the most central Jesus' teachings on the Realm of God as found in The Lord's Prayer...
Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH...
"Oh yeah, THAT," they might embarrassingly acknowledge, if they were engaged in a good faith discussion based upon actual reason as it relates to the words of Jesus (ie, the Gospel, which they quickly redefine to fit their human traditions).
They then substitute Jesus' actual teachings with their own little mortal theories:
To summarize Jesus’ mission: He came to announce and inaugurate the kingdom of God, save sinners by giving his life as a substitute for them, and thereby break the power of sin and death.
Yes, we GET that this is what YOU ALL theorize, but it's literally not what Jesus said, certainly not in any clear and central way as opposed to his teachings of Grace and the Beloved Community of God (which are found THROUGHOUT Jesus' teachings, not in the three or so isolated incidences which seem more like throwaway little lines, NOT a core part of what Jesus is teaching.)
In other words, they accuse US of having a "truncated portrait of Jesus" when our understanding is based upon the entirety of Jesus' actual teachings while at the same time, they have an EXTREMELY truncated portrait of Jesus based upon a handful of verses ripped from context and distorted beyond the context's actual content.
More on that later.
But seriously, Glenn, there are BETTER conservative religionists out there making BETTER arguments than these boys. Find some of them to make it an interesting conversation, not this shallow grade school attempted hit piece.
I have to agree with Dan. "Truncated Jesus" is inaccurate. "Fantasy Jesus" is more like what we see in Dan's ramblings and unjustified condescension. Dan clearly ignores so much about what Jesus taught in order to maintain his marxist liberation theology.
And abiding Dan's rules for "understanding aright", since there's no mention in Scripture or Jesus' teachings of "the Way of Grace" or "The Beloved Community", we can see that Dan's created for Himself a Jesus he can better appreciate.
Dan has in that past corrupted the understanding of the Lord's prayer and does so again here. There are two distinct prayer requests that Dan seems to join together as a single request. Jesus prays for God's Kingdom to come. That's one request. It's a Kingdom not of this world and is more about our access to it, which is possible through Jesus.
Then...and this is the part which Dan "truncates"...Jesus prays that the Will of God be done on earth as it is done in Heaven (why Dan cuts off the last part is telling). But Dan clearly doesn't truly care about God's Will being done, but only Dan's preferred version of what that Will is. It's totally socialist. Dan's willingness to obey God only goes so far, as dead infants and prancing homosexuals are but two examples of that which Dan doesn't worry about obeying.
More later.
Dan really, really is in denial and hates truth.
Which is why we don’t truncate Jesus at all. We take Him where we find Him. OT, Paul, James, all of it.
The problem with Dan’s human assertion, is that Jesus literally did say what Dan says He didn’t say. Of course the article deals with “on earth…”, because no one even hints at the Kingdom of YHWH, not including the earth. Although Jesus could be referring to the new earth that is spoken of later.
Dan is right that there are plenty of intelligent and well educated people who have written much more in depth on the subject. He’d prefer that we ignore their intellect, education, and abilities and simply accept what Dan wrote on his blog.
“THY Kingdom come ON EARTH”, demonstrates Dan truncating Jesus’words.
LOL. Silly Christians, all fighting amongst each other behind the computer screen like they are modern-day crusaders.
You guys talk to a god you've never seen or heard from before. Your senses cannot detect him because he doesn't exist. Psychiatrists would call you guys mental if there were not so many of you to threaten their lives.
Strange that Dan's link to one little mortal’s (his) human hunches is presented as some significant exposition of Scripture, while Dan belittles this link to one small piece addressing this issue.
Arrogance, pride, hubris, who knows.
What have you done to support your belief that there is no God?
Our understanding is based upon the entirety of Scripture, from cover to cover, Genesis to Revelations. We don't dismiss that which isn't highlighted in red letters as if it has no or less value.
Marshal, missing the point, said...
"Our understanding is based upon the entirety of Scripture, from cover to cover, Genesis to Revelations."
Mine too, of course! Would that you would listen more to the prophets and to the greater teachings found in Genesis and the Torah!
Marshal...
"We don't dismiss that which isn't highlighted in red letters as if it has no or less value"
Nor do I, of course. That I disagree with y'all's interpretations is precisely because I take Jesus as the clearest representation of God. Perhaps y'all don't - clearly not, as evidenced by your opinions. I take the words of Jesus as the best representation of God and the closest we can understand what God thinks. Then, given what Jesus actually said in his red letters -which of course I highly value, I'm a follower of Jesus! - I strive to understand the rest of Scripture, which I love and value, through the teachings of Jesus. The problem is not that I reject or don't respect all the teachings of the Bible, but that I have a higher view of Jesus and a closer literal understanding of his teachings than y'all do... Y'all hate it that we take Jesus more literally and seriously than y'all do, but you are not willing to take him seriously and so you choose to malign and attack and try to eat us like a lion. The accuser is indeed a dangerous lion, willing to attack and make false claims. But not Jesus.
Which you would know if you took Jesus and the whole Bible seriously instead of your legalistic attempts to take it legalistically literally, except when you don't, except when it's Jesus.
Dan
I said,
"Our understanding is based upon the entirety of Scripture, from cover to cover, Genesis to Revelations."
To which Dan falsely responded:
"Mine too, of course!"
One can't claim to "listen more to the prophets and to the greater teachings found in Genesis and the Torah", reject so much of it and still pretend it's the basis of one's understanding. How does that even work? You reject the clear Biblical teaching of man's sin nature, failing miserably to honor your own word regarding explaining why the several verses I cited in my post of 9/8/26 are not proof it's a Biblical teaching. This fact shows up in both Gen 6 & 8, affirmed by the Father Himself.
I then said,
"We don't dismiss that which isn't highlighted in red letters as if it has no or less value"
And you respond:
"Nor do I, of course."
But of course that's false as well, as you reject/dismiss Christ's own words relative to Him existing to take on Himself the punishment we deserve in order that we may be atoned. You most certainly do NOT take the words of Jesus as the best representation of God, for you regard God as a petty godling for daring to resolve the problem of our separation from Him in a manner you find personally displeasing. You only "respect" that which you find pleasing, which isn't respecting God (Father OR Son) at all.
It's not a matter of you disagreeing with our interpretation, because as I will continue to say, we're not interpreting so much as simply repeating what Scripture says and going with it. Where you pretend we're "interpreting" the verbatim presentation of any given verse or passage improperly, you blatantly fail to provide what you think is a more accurate understanding with actual evidence to back it up. And just as you fail to understand in the first place, you nonetheless pretend the failing is on our part simply because you don't like what Scripture actually says and teaches. We're not "interpreting" incorrectly. You're perverting and corrupting Scripture to your liking.
Of course you limit which of Jesus’ words in importance by demanding that only the ones in what you call sermons are those worth following.
I look at the words of any of the manifestations of YHYH equally no matter where they are found. I don’t limit myself to parts of the gospels.
C
I’m sure Dan’ll come up with some nonsense about how he loves all scripture, while still holding Jesus’ sermons as the most important.
Craig, reading but failing to understand ...
"you limit which of Jesus’ words in importance by demanding that only the ones in what you call sermons are those worth following."
1. I LIMIT NOTHING. Read that again to make sure you understand. I limit nothing.
2. In a conversation where we are going to look at ideas that Jesus promoted IN HIS sermons, then in that conversation we are limiting it to HIS SERMONS because reading HIS SERMONS is where we learn what he said in HIS SERMONS. The topic itself limits it to that.
Craig...
"I’m sure Dan’ll come up with some nonsense about how he loves all scripture, while still holding Jesus’ sermons as the most important."
Both things can be true. Of course. It always amazes me how conservatives fight so hard to downplay the actual words and teachings of Jesus, whom they name as Lord.
Do you think you can rightly understand biblical text without the teachings of Jesus, the Son of God, to help guide you? Hell, you can't do that even WITH the teachings of Jesus!
Dan
Marshal ridiculously said:
One can't claim to "listen more to the prophets and to the greater teachings found in Genesis and the Torah", reject so much of it and still pretend it's the basis of one's understanding. How does that even work?
? Because I reject NONE of it. I might reject YOUR PERSONAL LITTLE MORTAL OPINIONS about how best to understand some of those texts, but there is not one single verse in ALL the Bible that I "reject..." Objectively so.
You realize that you've made ZERO attempt to even try to justify such a irrationally false claim, right? By all means, FIND the place where I said, "Here is a biblical verse and I reject it." Even ONE. Can you find ONE place where I ever said such a thing (even if not in those words)?
The answer? No. You objectively can't. You just made a demonstrably false claim, bore an objectively false witness which, incidentally, is clearly wrong from the point of view of multiple biblical authors. Does that mean that YOU are the one rejecting the biblical witness, if you care so little for such a clearly wrong thing (EVEN IF the Bible didn't say so)?
Same for the rest of your unsupported (because you can't) false claims. Here's a hint: If you can't find even ONE place where I said something, it's the better part of intelligence and common decency to not make false accusations and slander. Which, once again, are contrary to the advice of multiple biblical authors.
"Because I reject NONE of it."
That's patently false. You've rejected a great deal of it, and likely far more than we here on this side of the divide could possibly know. But what we do know is clear. You've rejected much you don't like and pretend it's a matter of "interpretation", likewise rejecting that what you say we're "interpreting" is verbatim presentations of what Scripture says on any given subject. Rarely do we opine on anything which is in any way ambiguous...which isn't unusual given how very little there is in Scripture which can legitimately be so described.
As such, when you fail so miserably to provide an alternative meaning for a verse or passage about which you petulantly pretend we "misinterpret", you're left with a verse or passage which you necessarily have rejected. See how that works? If you could provide a compelling alternative understanding...made so by virtue of having provided direct and definitive supportive evidence from Scripture (or some legitimate translation of the original language which corrects what's been commonly understood for thousands of years)...the claim you've not rejected the verse or passage in question could be taken seriously. For example...and it's always a great one...you prefer to insist that Lev 18:20 refers to "some forms" of homosexual behavior despite there being nothing whatsoever in the text (indeed in the entirety of the Holy Bible) which suggests such a loophole. It simply says, "thou shalt not..." and you reject the blatantly obvious fact that it says only that. Thus, you reject that verse outright.
And of course, the several citations from my post on 9/8/26 have each been dismissed as not meaning what a plain reading of each of them so clearly conveys about the issue of man's sin nature.
As to your whiny demand "FIND the place where I said, "Here is a biblical verse and I reject it."", that's a cheap dodge, and I'm in no way required to provide such a distinct set of words in order to be absolutely truthful, factual and accurate in saying you reject quite a bit of Scripture. This is the same dishonest ploy favored by muslims and constantly promoted by Indian muslim apologist Zakir Naik, where he says, "Show me in the Bible where Jesus says unequivocally, 'I am God. You must worship me.', and I'll become a Christian today!" Of course there are plenty of instances where Jesus refers to Himself as everyone refers to God alone, and we're supposed to pretend Jesus is not identifying Himself as God. The adage goes like this, when asked if another said "XYZ"...."Well, not in so many words." which means the other person did say what was referenced, just not in the same words as was referenced. If someone complained that their students don't do their homework, did that someone just identify as a teacher without saying specifically, "I'm a teacher"? In the same way, your actions and words speak well the fact that you've rejected much of Scripture and only a Jeff St buffoon would pretend you've not as much screamed it to the world.
It is for this very reason I've been for years convinced you've rejected God (Father and Son) long ago. I know you by your worm infested fruit.
Marshal irrationally said (in the manner of a dim-witted schoolboy who doesn't even begin to comprehend the basics of logic and reasoning)...
"that's a cheap dodge, and I'm in no way required to provide such a distinct set of words in order to be absolutely truthful, factual and accurate in saying you reject quite a bit of Scripture."
If you're claiming I'm saying or believing something, YOU have to have SOMETHING to support the claim. Otherwise it's just an empty, slanderous, and stupidly false claim. I'm telling you, between the two of us, I'm the one who knows what I think and I don't think what you're saying. You're factually wrong. You're tremendously factually wrong.
The fact that you can't even TRY to support your stupidly false claim just exposes you as the fraud that you are. You can't possibly be this inept and irrational, marginal.
If you're making a slanderous charge, the onus is on YOU to support the charge. If you're making the charge when I'm telling you that's not factually what I think, the onus is even more so upon you to support your claim. This is not rocket science. It's just basic adult reasoning and decency. You're demonstrating you are neither an adult in your reasoning nor decent in your morality with this false claim.
Grow up. You all are doing your side no favors with this emotionally damaged, rationally inept line of false claims. You're exposing yourselves as the idiot villains your worst enemies assume you are. Be better than that.
Dan
I did support it, girl. I refer you again to Lev 18:20 and your inept and nonsensical dishonest claim (not a belief, but a claim since there is no support to insist you believe what you say) that it is only referring to "some forms" of homosexual behavior. It's a laughable attempt to dismiss the commandment you dislike because of your commitment to perversion and depravity.
I'm not "emotional" stating the obvious. You reject Scripture. You're girlish protestations don't impose upon me extraordinary measures to prove what's already commonly known about you based on your own ridiculous corruptions of Scripture. Your constant foot-stomping petulance has no value here. What does is the same level of evidence and support from you which you demand of those like Craig and myself at your Blog of Lies and Perversions, where your panty-wetting defense of the indefensible belongs.
I had factually stated (in response to Marshal's stupidly false claim that I "reject" parts of the OT):
"Because I reject NONE of it."
Marshally goofily replied, again with no support (as always):
That's patently false. You've rejected a great deal of it
I've rejected "a great deal of" the prophets and the OT? Well that is QUITE an imaginary claim, young man. Perhaps, since you imagine such a vast amount of rejection on my part, you could name EVEN ONE VERSE that I have "rejected..."? And also explain what YOU mean when you imagine I've rejected a verse/passage/book... do you merely mean I dare to disagree with how you personally would like to interpret a given passage? But daring to disagree with a mortal Marshal is NOT the same as rejecting, is it? You'll have to do better than that, little mortal.
What conversation is limited to only what Jesus said in His sermons, and who other than you draws this absurd distinction?
C
So, you do hold Jesus’ sermons as most important above everything else Jesus said.
No, I just don’t exclude, emphasize, edit, or minimize Jesus’ teachings based on whether or not someone else classifies them as not part of a sermon.
No one is fighting to downplay anything Jesus said.
Yes, obviously, I am a sinful human.
Ohhhhhhhh, Dan's double standard on full display. We have to prove our claims, but he doesn’t. No matter how fanciful his claims are.
C
What's "goofy" is continuing to demand what you've received. Ironically, you not only reject Lev 18:20, you reject my explanation which confirms you've rejected it.
Once again, little girl, if you can't demonstrate what's wrong with my "interpretation" (AKA my presentation of what Scripture clearly and unambiguously says) of a verse or passage, then you're rejecting the verses/passages. And it's not enough to simply throw some crappy protestation against the wall and hoping it sticks as a legitimate and more accurate understanding of said verse/passage. No one is obliged to respect such childish attempts to accept your corruption or redefining of what the verse/passage in question means, simply because you reject what is clearly taught by them. You'll have to do better than that, little heretic.
Art,
The problem isn't that Dan rejects the things in the OT that he finds problematic. The problem is that interprets them in ways that allow him to live with them. He's much like the JWs who insist that Scripture needs to be interpreted correctly, and that they are the only one's who do so. Dan, on the other hand, hides behind "hyperbole", "myth" and "figurative language/metaphor" He simply labels passages that don't fit his theological framework as one of the above and moves on. He doesn't need to explain what the passage is intended to mean, he just labels it and moves on. Genesis="myth". But never any reason why the "myth" is part of Scripture. What we are supposed to take from the "myth", just "myth".
It allows him to claim to "love scripture", without having to accept what Scripture says at face value.
Art,
You'll note what Dan has done here. The issue we've pointed out is the fact that he's truncated Jesus' words by leaving off the end of the sentence. His response is not to deal with the fact that we've pointed out him doing what he claims he doesn't do, it's to focus on your last comment about the entirety of Scripture.
As I noted elsewhere, Dan cherry picks proof texts which present problems for his theology, without realizing the problems. He references the bad tree/bed fruit, while not realizing what Jesus' words tell us about what happens to those bad trees. He quotes the "on earth" part of Jesus' words because it fits his theology, but leaves off the "in Heaven" part because of his insistence that "Heaven/Hell" don't exist.
Craig...
"What conversation is limited to only what Jesus said in His sermons, and who other than you draws this absurd distinction?"
This conversation arose, in part, when I mentioned that the biblical text in multiple places testifies that Jesus came to preach good news, to preach the gospel, to preach the good news to the poor and marginalized. Multiple times it speaks of Jesus preaching the good news, his gospel. Therefore, when you all claim that this gospel is something akin to your sin nature and atonement theories, then one would assume one could find that in the sermons where Jesus literally preached the good news. I'm noting the complete and total absence of any such teaching. On the other hand, there are endless teachings about the realm of God, the beloved community, and how the poor and marginalized are welcome. That runs throughout the gospel teachings of Jesus and the sermons of Jesus.
So if the question is about whether mortal evangelical theories of good news show up in the sermons of Jesus, then the answer will be found in the sermons of Jesus. If you're making a claim that something is found in the teachings and sermons of Jesus, then that's where you go to find it. Understand?
Dan
Marshal...
"Once again, if you can't demonstrate what's wrong with my "interpretation" (AKA my presentation of what Scripture clearly and unambiguously says) of a verse or passage, then you're rejecting the verses/passages. "
The problem you're having is that I have explained the rational and biblical problems with your personal human interpretation of such passages. They begin with ...
1. These rules found in the ancient text of the Old Testament were, in the text and context itself, given specifically and literally to the Israeli people. They were not called universal rules.
1. Some of these rules are real horror stories of great evils and not moral good rules. Telling people how to sell your children into slavery, telling people to execute people for a wide range of relatively innocent behaviors.
2. Further there's nothing in the Bible or in common sense and moral reasoning that insists that we should look to Old Testament rules or New Testament rules, for that matter, to understand moral and immoral actions. That is a presumption that you hold that not everyone shares. Your little theories only work if you begin with that presupposition. That's not your call to make, though, and not everybody agrees with your personal little mortal opinion.
In short, the Bible is not a magic rulings book and so many of us don't give a damn if there's a rule in the Old Testament that describes how to enslave people, or how to sell your children into slavery, or whether or not you should kill people for laying down with members of their own gender.
Not even you all think that all the rules in the Old Testament are universal in some way. You eat shrimp or at least don't condemn it, for instance. Now come up with your part. You've cooked up this other theory that there are temporal laws and universal rules in these Old Testament laws. But the text doesn't say that. That's your imagination, your theory, and it's unproven.
3. And even if some rules in the Old Testament are rightly considered universal because they're in there, and they're not, this one about men laying with men is never really explained. Sure, it sounds like some kind of homosexual action, but would it apply to modern gay men in a loving relationship being married? That's not a given and it's not proven from your texts, WHICH, once again, it is not proven that it should be universal in nature.
So in conclusion, what's wrong with your interpretation is that it's building a little god of your interpretations of ancient texts and treating those theories as a little rulings book of your own creation where you've decided some rules are universal because you find them there. That's not a given and it's frankly quite blasphemous, on the face of it, for those of us who believe in God, and just irrational for those who don't.
But we've covered all this before. You don't appear to be able to separate your opinions and theories from God's Word. You are the very image of a modern major Pharisee.
Dan
Ps. I've dictated this all and haven't checked for spelling errors. I hope there are none.
Let me try putting it another way. Marshall is saying,
I'm starting with the theory that rules found in the Old Testament are universal in nature.
Let me clarify, I'm starting with the presumption that SOME of the rules, but not all the rules, found in the Old Testament are universal in nature. That is to say, they are describing accurately what is and isn't moral.
Marshal is further saying, in cases where the term may be vague and unspecified - , for instance, "men should not lie with men, if they do, kill them," - he is saying that he, Marshal, is the one who rightly knows what that rule meant to Old Testament people, and Marshal would say, "That it is speaking of any and every possible type of homosexual behavior."
Marshall's father saying that he noted that not every rule or ruling in the Old Testament or New Testament is universal in nature, and that he knows which ones are and which ones aren't. He has no rubric or authority to make that decision, but he's certain of himself.
The problem, therefore, and all of that is that it is all based on you and your human traditions. Not everybody is starting with these presumptions that you start with. You have no way of proving, at all, objectively, what you're saying is factually correct.
Dan
Gotcha, so you've arbitrarily limited the sources of information to only those passages which you claim are Jesus' sermons, and excluded anything else Jesus might have said. Thanks for clearing that up.
So, your arbitrary limit excludes what Jesus said in Luke 4 because He wasn't preaching a sermon, He merely read Scripture and made one comment.
I do understand, but I don't arbitrarily separate what Jesus taught His disciples or others in more intimate settings, from what He taught in more public settings. I don't automatically reduce Jesus teaching in the Upper Room, or His teaching to Nicodemus to secondary status because of where Jesus was an the number of people He was talking to.
"then one would assume one could find that in the sermons where Jesus literally preached the good news."
Perhaps the problem is limiting oneself by making assumptions about Jesus and imposing those assumptions on the text.
1. Except for the fact that there are clear distinctions between the Laws that applied to the Israelite people generally, specific sections of the Israelite community (Priests, etc), and those which are universal.
1. We understand that you have opinions about the Torah law, but your opinions are not facts.
2. That is quite a claim. Yes, we can tell (based on the larger context) that some OT laws were time/place/people specific and that some were not.
3. Again, that's quite a claim.
I'll let Art deal with specifics, I see no point.
"The problem you're having is that I have explained the rational and biblical problems with your personal human interpretation of such passages."
No you haven't. You've merely provided why Dan Trabue has problems with these Biblical truths (not my "personal human interpretation" of what has simply been provided verbatim), based on your own personal notion of what constitutes a "rational" problem. That's not good enough. I'm operating on YOUR rules for supporting claims, and you're failing miserably to abide your own rules here. I don't want your opinion, as it's quite well known. I demand your evidence and you've provided none.
"1. These rules found in the ancient text of the Old Testament were, in the text and context itself, given specifically and literally to the Israeli people."
There wasn't yet established an "Israel" when Mosaic Law was given to the Hebrew (not "Israeli") people under Moses. But that they were given to the Hebrews at that time does not argue that none of the rules had a universal quality. Indeed, it's dishonest to present them in this way so as to abdicate your obligation to prove that none of them remain rules for all people for all time.
"1. Some of these rules are real horror stories of great evils and not moral good rules."
None of them were, as nothing God commands is ever evil or "a horror story", except to those who reject His Will as you do.
"Telling people how to sell your children into slavery, telling people to execute people for a wide range of relatively innocent behaviors."
Again you reject the reality of what Scripture was presenting simply because of the use of the word "slavery" as if it meant then what "slavery" conjures in contemporary minds. To wit:
The biblical use of "slavery" (often translated as "servant" or "bondservant") differs significantly from the race-based, lifelong chattel slavery of the modern transatlantic slave trade.
Debt and Poverty Resolution: Many Hebrew servants sold their labor voluntarily as a temporary economic arrangement to pay off debts or survive extreme poverty, similar to indentured servitude. This included the "selling" of children as well.
Time Limits: Hebrew servants were legally required to be released after six years of service or during the Year of Jubilee, whichever came first.
Legal Protections: Unlike ancient systems outside of Israel, Hebrew law granted servants basic rights, including protection from physical abuse, the right to marry, food, clothing, and immediate freedom if permanently injured by a master.
Condemnation of Kidnapping: Abducting people or trafficking them into slavery was strictly forbidden and punishable by death under Mosaic law (Exodus 21:16).
War Captives: Captives from surrounding nations could be kept as a humane alternative to total execution during ancient warfare, though they were still subject to legal safeguards.
New Testament Slavery (Roman Context)
Greco-Roman Labor System: First-century Roman slavery was not based on race. People often entered servitude through debt, self-sale to pay off obligations, or as prisoners of war, and many were freed by age 30.
Strict Condemnation of Slave Traders: The New Testament places slave traders (andrapodistai) in the same severe moral category as murderers and abusers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).
Subversion from Within: Writers like the Apostle Paul did not launch political abolition campaigns, but they fundamentally undermined the social hierarchy by declaring all people spiritually equal "in Christ" (Galatians 3:28) and urging masters to treat slaves with fairness and brotherhood (Colossians 4:1).
Metaphorical Use: New Testament writers frequently used "slave" or "bondservant" (doulos) metaphorically to describe a person's total devotion or surrender—either willingly serving God or being bound to sin (Romans 6:17–18), in the manner you're currently a slave to sin now.
So, given you've now been educated once again on the folly of citing OT descriptions of "slavery" to pretend slavery was practiced by God's Chosen People, and thus we must accept that the OT preached positively on the subject, to ever dare bring it up in such a context as this again means you're intentionally lying.
The same dishonesty is present in suggesting God's commandments to put to death people guilty of having committed various sins also is abject rejection of the truth of Scripture. You ignore the seriousness of sinning against God and demand He must regard such infractions against Him according to the Will of Trabue. You again minimize what it means to sin against God. I'll alter your "stealing a cookie" fallacy (as if it's about the cookie rather than the stealing) and instead use another sin:
Imagine a lie is a simple, identical statement: "I did not eat the food."
• To your dog: You eat the last bite of steak and tell your dog, "I didn't eat the food." The dog looks at you blankly. The impact is zero. There is no moral rupture, no broken trust, and the relationship is exactly as it was a moment ago.
• To your child: Your child asks if you ate the special treat they saved in the fridge. You look them in the eye and say, "I didn't eat the food." The impact is a breach of safety. The child eventually finds out, and a small brick of foundational trust is removed. You have modeled deception to someone who relies on you for reality.
• To your spouse: Your spouse spent hours preparing a specific dish for a gathering. You eat it, and when asked, you say, "I didn't eat the food." The impact is a deep betrayal of an equal covenant. It introduces gaslighting, fractures intimacy, and requires an apology and a restoration of trust because you actively chose a minor selfish desire over the truth of your partnership.
• To God (Ananias and Sapphira Context): You stand before the community, holding back resources for your own greed while claiming total devotion, and spiritually declare to the Creator of the universe, "I didn't eat the food"* (or in the biblical case, "This is the full price"). The impact is cosmic rebellion. Because God is total truth and the author of reality, trying to deceive Him is an attempt to alter absolute truth itself. It results in immediate spiritual death and total alienation from the source of life.
So we can see that you indeed DO minimize the seriousness of sin as it relates to the only One about Whom one should be concerned. As David said in reference to his adultery and murder of Uriah, it was against God he sinned, and his sins were pretty egregious.
"2. Further there's nothing in the Bible or in common sense and moral reasoning that insists that we should look to Old Testament rules or New Testament rules, for that matter, to understand moral and immoral actions."
And this is your routine weasel-word rationalization for rejecting that which you find personally displeasing. The Bible isn't required to state emphatically and unequivocally that it is, by virtue of being the written revealed Word of God, authoritative as the source of morality. I'm certainly not going to use the likes of YOU as a legitimate source! And it's not a matter of pitting the OT against the NT, since they are harmonized quite nicely.
"That is a presumption that you hold that not everyone shares."
Am I talking to "everyone" here? Has "everyone" joined in the conversation here? No. I'm talking only with you and only you are objecting to the truths and facts I'm presenting with nothing but your petulant "Nyuh uh" opposition.
"Your little theories only work if you begin with that presupposition."
I have no "little theories" about what Scripture says. I just read, and I began MY "serious and prayerful study" of Scripture as a blank slate with no presuppositions of any kind, seeking only to know what it says and teaches. I didn't begin as you did following your father's "Did God really say...?" You don't disagree with me. You disagree with God.
"Not even you all think that all the rules in the Old Testament are universal in some way."
I don't pretend it's at all difficult to separate the universal moral laws of Leviticus from the Hebrew specific civil and purity laws. Dietary restrictions were overturned in Acts and anyone who claims to have "seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture" wouldn't dare make the argument you're making now.
"3. And even if some rules in the Old Testament are rightly considered universal because they're in there, and they're not, this one about men laying with men is never really explained."
Yes it is. It says, "Thou shalt not..." What more does a Christ-follower need? What kind of Christ-follower supposes there's a loophole by virtue of pretending it might not mean "Thou shalt not..." regardless of the context or scenario in which the behavior might take place. There's no caveat given because there is no such context. I'm impressed with how effortlessly you mock Almighty God with this childish ploy! But again, this prohibited behavior was among those sandwiched between admonitions against doing what was done in other cultures, which means God regards it as abomination for everyone. You've NEVER address that little fact, because it denies you the liberty to reject that verse, which you most clearly do.
So in conclusion, you have no evidence to support your claim that I'm misinterpreting Scripture in any way, or injecting into it what it doesn't say. The real blasphemy is your corruption of Scripture and the Will of God and then daring to say you regard Him as you God at all. You don't. You worship a god of your own making.
But we've covered all this before. You don't have the spine and integrity to just admit you give a flying rat's ass about this "Christian" thing while still exploiting the name to pretend you're a "good" person. You clearly don't care about God's Word, as you clearly can't justify your understanding of it with how it's presented in Scripture. You don't even understand what the Pharisees were doing wrong, as you do the exact same things.
So, rather than carry on with this boring attempt to pretend you're right with God, go back to the challenge from which you've fled (the challenge YOU initiated) and explain what any of those verses I've cited means and bring actual evidence from Scripture to do so.
Dan doesn't even know what the "Good News" is.
It's probably more accurate to say that Dan knows with absolute certainty what he thinks the Good News is, regardless of what anyone or anything else might say.
Art,
You know that Dan isn’t going to take up your challenge.
Hell, my challenge was simple. It was literally as simple as “show me what question I missed, and what comment it was in”, and he couldn’t accomplish that easy challenge.
C
Y'all are just strange. It doesn't matter how many times I answer a question clearly, directly, and rationally, not only do y'all not agree, y'all don't even see the answer. You have blinded yourselves so much by your partisanship and your mythology that you can't even see direct clear answers when they're given to you. It's a strange thing, this self-blindedness.
Dan
You don't answer questions, Dan. You obfuscate, equivocate and prevaricate. You avoid, deflect and divert. You spew nonsense and expect us to be satisfied that you've met your obligation. If you actually answered questions directly and honestly, these comment threads wouldn't approach 300 comments.
In keeping with your dishonest nature, your use of the word "theory" is intended to insult as if what is expressed is no more than an unproven guess, personal conjecture, or suspicion, rather than the well-substantiated principles, concepts and teachings they are.
I've never suggested, nor even so much as hinted, that all rules found in the OT are universal. That which I have stated as such are, again, well-substantiated, as has been demonstrated with regard to Lev 18:22. Regardless of the universal quality of any rule in the OT, there is not one of them which isn't moral considering Who mandated them. Why anyone who identifies as a Christian would dare presume to judge otherwise is an indictment on the character of said alleged "Christian".
I would further state, as I have repeatedly over the years, that there is absolutely nothing "vague or unspecified" about Lev 18:22, and to suggest otherwise is evidence of either inveterate lying or abject stupidity. It stretches credulity to dare assert one can be confused by this clear prohibition. Even so, on what basis can any sane, honest person not infer at the very least that this refers to romantic/erotic behaviors which are or would be unique to male/female relationships based on the complementary and compatibility of the the biological design of males and females?
And as to what it meant to OT people, you indulge in what C.S. Lewis referred to as "chronological snobbery" in supposing that someone OT people would be as confused about the prohibition as you so desperately need to believe is even possible in order to suppose you have justification for defending this behavior you find so compelling. To so cheaply and dishonestly question whether the prohibition, as so clearly and plainly stated, leaves open any possibility of "any possible type of homosexual behavior" not being included is as insipid and childish as pretending there's some form of "treat" before dinner not prohibited by your momma.
Dan pretending I need some hard and fast "rubric or authority" to determine when a Levitical law is or isn't universal flies in the face of his own insistence that he uses his "reason" (a comical thought) to understand what he wants to accept as true, but is yet somehow impossible to separate the universal from the time/place/people specific Levitical laws...and worse, that it's absolutely not possible for any whose determination runs afoul of Dan's love of homosexuality...is incredibly dishonest and self-serving. "Oh", says Dan. "It's OK for me to have sex with a goat because that wasn't a universal law".
The problem, therefore, is as it's always been. Dan rejects Scripture he finds inconvenient to abide and pretends those who call him out for this obvious rebellion are simply imposing "human traditions", and demands it is I and those like me who must "objectively prove" are not "misinterpreting" Scripture he rejects, while he doesn't do jack shit to prove we are.
But of course, I've done all I need to do to support what is obvious and Dan simply rejects that, too, while as always, providing no proofs or evidence of his own which isn't convoluted nonsense and childish petulance. I ask again, why does Dan even bother pretending he's a Christian?
Dan,
Just to let you know, I will not post comments which are no more than "(rolls eyes)" or "(sighs)". You do enough to clutter the thread with nonsense.
The problem with "entirely absent" is that it ignores the fact that Jesus affirms the Torah as Scripture, and that Jesus (as the second person of the Godhead) is the author of the Torah and it's laws. Jesus didn't need to repeat what was already clear in the minds of His listeners. Further, Jesus is very clear about what marriage is and how marriage functions as an example of Christ's relationship to the Church.
But none of that matters to ole "word count" Dan as he's content to take a shallow and simplistic view of scripture in ways that best serve his preconceptions.
"I'm starting with the theory that rules found in the Old Testament are universal in nature.'
What Dan does here is to start off with a false premise, which would therefore render any conclusions drawn from this premise ridiculous.
"Marshal is further saying, in cases where the term may be vague and unspecified - , for instance, "men should not lie with men, if they do, kill them," "
Dan, bizarrely, considers the above "vague and unspecified".
"Marshall's father saying that he noted that not every rule or ruling in the Old Testament or New Testament is universal in nature, and that he knows which ones are and which ones aren't. He has no rubric or authority to make that decision, but he's certain of himself."
1. I'm not sure what Marshall's father has to do with any of this.
2. Determining what laws are universal, and what laws are time/place/people specific isn't rocket science.
3. There are plenty of scholars and teachers who have written and spoken on this subject. It's been well studied.
4. For example. Any of the laws relating to the priests/Levites, temple sacrifices, behaviors, garments, and the like were obviously not for the majority of ancient Israel. Let alone binding on gentiles. But, apparently that's too obscure and difficult for you to figure out.
5. The percentage (per an OT professor that I've studied under) of Torah law that could possibly apply "universally" is roughly 10%. That 10% excludes y'all's favorite proof texts.
Dan can't/won't answer questions with a simple direct answer, and expects us to somehow divine the answer hidden among the verbose, vague, and obfuscation.
Here is a simple direct question which I addressed earlier and you have dodged/avoided.
Given the fact that the first thing we hear about the incarnate Jesus is "you shall call His name Jesus because He will save His people from their sins", and the last thing He said before ascending after His resurrection was "“These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance for[c] the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.", how do you account for this failure to mention the "poor and oppressed"?
If "the poor and oppressed" were the most important part of Jesus' ministry, why do the first and last things said about, or by Him focus on salvation, repentance, and forgiveness of Sin?
"Marshal is further saying, in cases where the term may be vague and unspecified - , for instance, "men should not lie with men, if they do, kill them," "
Once again we see Dan choosing to cite Lev 20:13 instead of Lev 18:20...which is the example is always cite, as it distinctly and definitively references a specific behavior God prohibits in no uncertain terms and without regard to any context or scenario in which it might take place and not also be prohibited...so the punishment can be included. This is intentionally deceptive and thus dishonest (Dan's willfully lying) as it distracts from the point...the behavior of homosexuality and the universality of the prohibition, as evidenced by the manner in which Chapter 18 sandwiches the prohibitions between the cultures of Egypt and Canaan, indicating God disapproves of anyone indulging in it...to push attention to the punishment God mandated in a later chapter (while ignoring the blame for the punishment being solely on those who indulge in the perverse practice) and thereby imply that any of us would regard the law regarding the punishment to be universal and applying to contemporary Christians. Right off the bat we can easily determine...not that it's "nuanced", but rather blatantly obvious...the difference between a behavior versus the punishment for it. We rightly "reason" out this difference and the fact that immoral behaviors remain immoral, while Dan tries to "reason" his way to reject God's Will on the subject while still calling himself a follower of God's Way.
I would much rather have a freshly baked cinnamon roll than one of Dan's eye rolls any day of the week. I have no idea how you guys are able to go back and forth with this uneducated idiot. It takes very much patience to deal with someone who (probably) deliberately twists everything you have to say; explaining your explanations to no avail has to be fun.
"It's figurative language referring to a new way of life embracing grace. What do you think it means?"
The problem with your personal human hunch is that it ignores the rest of Jesus teaching on repentance. The language He used as "death to life", asleep to awake", "born again", "new creation", "scarlet to white as snow". Those are all radical, transformations that suggest much more than "embracing grace". While your personal human hunch, might be partially True it seems insufficient to explain Jesus' broader teachings.
Dan's insistence that "Jesus' teachings" can only be found in His "sermons", is the equivalent of saying that the only time a teacher is teaching is in a classroom in front of students and that what happens one on one or in a small group is no longer "teaching". How ridiculous.
Actually, I do enjoy seeing how Dan will bend over backwards to pretend the facts and evidence presented to him aren't enough to compel him to reject his marxist liberation theology in favor of being an actual Christ follower, rather than to maintain the facade that he is one.
That's a really good analogy...simple, concise and easy to understand. Dan should study it again before his next attempt to form an analogy of his own for any reason. He's really bad at it!
I keep asking for his explanation and all I get is this drivel about "the poor and the marginalized" and "rich man bad". To Dan, it's the "Social Gospel" of the "oppressor vs the oppressed" as revealed by his prophet, the Rev. Dr. Marxist Luther King Jr. It's not what Jesus preached, but it's what Dan needs to pretend He did.
Craig, Marshal...
"Dan's insistence that "Jesus' teachings" can only be found in His "sermons"...
That's a really good analogy...simple, concise and easy to understand."
No, Marshall. No. It is NOT a good analogy because it is based upon a false premise. Do you understand that? Do you understand that if the premise is false then whatever you write after it, it's just so much diarretic bullshit. Do you understand that?
Craig, your premise is false because there is no insistence upon my part, that I am saying Jesus's teachings can ONLY be found in his sermons. Do you understand that? That is not what I have said. God have mercy. Y'all have serious serious reading deficits boys.
For the thousandth time, Jesus said he would preach the good news in his sermons to the poor and marginalized and others. Now if we want to find the good news that Jesus said he would preach in his sermons, then we would look to those sermons for that good news which he preached. It's not to say he might not teach it elsewhere. It's not to say that Paul or Barney the Dinosaur might preach it somewhere.
I'm just noting the reality that in the Gospel stories, as recorded by the Gospel writers, where Jesus speaks of preaching the gospel to the people, if he said he's preaching it in his sermons, then that's one place we should be able to find it. And yet, nowhere in Jesus' sermons do your little human theories of a hellish and cruel godling appear. Your bad news is not good news in any sense at all. God have mercy.
I'll answer your questions later, Craig, when I get around to it but given your serious reading comprehension problems, what good will it do if I answer them? You'll only fail to understand the answers.
Dan
Well, now Dan's just playing semantic games. Excellent job of trying to extricate yourself from the hole you’ve dug yourself.
So, Dan, specifically where else can you find Jesus’ teachings?
Where, specifically, did Jesus say that He was “preaching the gospel to the poor in His sermons”?
BS, you’re just setting yourself up to make excuses for not answering.
Just like the thread at my blog where you used your claim that I hadn’t answered your one important question as your excuse not to answer questions. Then when asked to repeat this question (with some reasonable stipulations), you chose not to do what you were asked. It’s how you roll, you come up with some BS excuse that allows you to pretend like you hiding from answering questions isn’t just you being a coward.
Answer, don’t answer, I don’t care. This little cowardly ploy to avoid answering is answer enough. You making up some more BS human hunches with no proof, isn’t going to help.
C
I asked this question dozens of comments ago, and you’ve avoided them for this long, why would I think you’ll answer them now.
Coward.
C
I’m pretty confident that Dan’s refusal to do as I asked was because he know I’d answer again and he didn’t want to follow through on his promise.
Essentially Dan wants to be the one who gets to decide what
constitutes Jesus’ teachings, and what constitutes His sermons, without any sort of guidance besides himself.
C
Essentially Dan wants to be the one who gets to decide what
constitutes Jesus’ teachings, and what constitutes His sermons, without any sort of guidance besides himself.
C
Dan is sometimes very creative in how he tries to avoid the implications of things he’s said, and at removing Scripture from meaning and context.
C
Dan....given your incredibly poor grasp of what an analogy is or how to create one, I'm not surprised you'd disagree with the quality of Craig's. But it only fails if you insist a sermon is that which can only take place in a formal setting or before a crowd of at least a quantity of people you haven't stated. That is, how many people must be present in order for a discourse from Jesus can be called a "sermon"? And is He or His people required to have assembled or invited such a crowd, as opposed to them just showing up to listen in to what He's saying to His disciples...the number of whom is not stated in the text (don't confuse "disciples" with "Apostles"). For example:
In Matt 5 (NIV) it begins this way:
"Now when He saw the crowds, He went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to Him, and He began to teach them, saying:" ...and thus begins what is called "The Sermon On The Mount". There's a distinction between the crowds Jesus saw, and the disciples to whom He began to speak. How many disciples were with Him is not made clear. At this point in the narrative, Jesus had only called four of the twelve to follow Him. Were these the only "disciples" to whom Jesus began to teach on the mountainside? It doesn't say, but it does say He began to teach His disciples who "came to Him". If there were only the four, at what point did crowds gather to listen in and how many were necessary to be present doing so in order to now make Jesus' teaching morph into a sermon?
Personally, I have no reason or special need to believe there were only four disciples, regardless of whether they were just Apostles or all students/followers of Jesus. The point here is that to restrict in any way when and what Jesus taught to "sermons" as we think of the term today as opposed to any teaching by Him qualifying as a sermon because He's imparting His teachings either way is indeed a semantic game, and that game is to downplay His teaching to only what satisfies the social gospel types like you. By Chapter 16, when He begins speaking of His sacrifice on the cross, it becomes more than allusion and becomes quite specific. But even as a child, when He speaks of doing His Father's Will, that Will includes His own death on the cross and why it's meant to happen, whether He explicitly mentions it or not.
Art,
A couple of good points.
Thanks for backing me up on the analogy, even with Dan's equivocation it still seems apt.
As you note, the SOTM wasn't necessarily intended to "teach" the crowds, and it could be argued that His retreat to the mountainside was to get away from the crowds. The text doesn't demand this reading, but it certainly isn't explicit that Jesus was preaching to the crowds. Nor is there any mention of the poor/marginalized in either group.
What I think Dan is missing, probably because he doesn't put enough weight on Jesus Jewishness, is the role of a Rabbi. As a general rule Rabbis were did not fill the same role as a modern day pastor/minister. Per AI we get this summary.
"Core Roles and Functions
• Teacher of the Torah: A rabbi's primary job was to study, interpret, and explain the Written and Oral Torah in practical, everyday terms for the Jewish people.
• Legal and Scriptural Arbiter: Rabbis (evolving largely from the Pharisaic tradition) answered complex questions of religious law (halakha) and weighed evidence carefully when making legal or ethical judgments.
• Master to Disciples (Talmidim): Unlike modern clergy, a 1st-century rabbi gathered a group of devoted disciples who traveled with him, listened to his scriptural studies, and closely imitated his lifestyle, ethics, and daily habits (shimush chachamim).
• Lay Vocation: First-century rabbis did not charge fees to teach the Torah and typically supported themselves through a secular trade or occupation.
• Distinction from Temple Priests: Religious leadership was traditionally held by the kohanim (priests) and Levites who managed the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Rabbis were generally laymen whose authority came from personal wisdom, piety, and mastery of scripture—a role that expanded dramatically after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
If you would like, we can explore how 1st-century."
We know that Jesus taught the Torah, the Psalms, and the Prophets from Hebrew Scripture.
We aren't sure how much of the "judge" role He played, but people definitely went to Him with those kinds of questions and disputes.
He was clearly focused on His role in teaching His disciples. From what we know of the behavior of Rabbis in the 1st century that primarily involved collecting a small group of disciples and teaching them in informal, settings.
We know Jesus had a "lay skill" as a builder, but the Gospels don't mention Him using that skill during His ministry.
We also know that Jesus did not take on a Temple role, although He taught in the outer courts. Nor did He appear to have a regular commitment to lead at a specific synagogue on a regular basis.
Nothing in the role of a Rabbi, indicates that their primary means of teaching was to preach sermons to large groups of people. Jesus seemed, primarily, to pour into the Apostles and disciples in order to prepare them for their ministry after He ascended.
It almost seems like Dan is assuming that Jesus' role was analogous to that of a modern pastor, or traveling preacher, when nothing in the text makes that explicit.
contd.
Again, I'll take the easy route and copy/paste the AI summary.
"Major Discourses and Sermons of Jesus
• The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7): Jesus' most famous speech. It opens with the Beatitudes, offers teachings on inner righteousness, anger, love for enemies, prayer (including the Lord's Prayer), non-resistance to evil, and concludes with the parable of the wise and foolish builders.
• The Commission of the Twelve (Matthew 10): Instructions and a commissioning charge given to the disciples as they are sent out to preach and heal.
• The Parables of the Kingdom (Matthew 13): A series of parables explaining the nature, mystery, and growth of the Kingdom of Heaven.
• Church Instructions / Community Discourse (Matthew 18): Teachings on humility, dealing with sin in the community, forgiveness, and church discipline.
• The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25): End-times prophecy given on the Mount of Olives regarding the destruction of the temple, signs of the end, and the final judgment (including the sheep and the goats).
Key Themes of Jesus' Sermons
• The Kingdom of God: Calling people to repentance and alignment with God's rule.
• Condition of the Heart: Shifting focus from mere outward rule-following to inward transformation (such as thoughts, motives, and love).
• Grace and Mercy: Emphasizing forgiveness, care for the poor, and reconciliation."
3 years of public ministry, and only 5 "sermons". With "care for the poor" coming in as one part of the third most themes.
Maybe putting a primary focus on Jesus' "sermons" isn't the best way to follow Jesus, and maybe giving more consideration to Jesus' teachings to His disciples might be more productive.
FWIW
Hypothetically, if a math tutor is working one on one with a student and records the session, then that recording is merely the medium to allow the effect of the teaching to be spread beyond one student.
Likewise. when Jesus taught His disciples in small groups, and those teaching were recorded it allows millions of people access to what Jesus said in less public sessions. How can one be teaching, and the other not?
Post a Comment