Pope Francis is insisting that his concern for the poor and critique of the global economic system isn't some novel, communist-inspired ideology but rather the original and core "touchstone" of the Christian faith.
Some U.S. conservatives have branded the first Latin American pope a Marxist for his frequent critiques of consumerism and focus on a church "that is poor and for the poor." But in an interview contained in a new book, Francis explains that his message is rooted in the Gospel and has been echoed by church fathers since Christianity's first centuries.
"The Gospel does not condemn the wealthy, but the idolatry of wealth, the idolatry that makes people indifferent to the call of the poor," Francis says in "This Economy Kills," a study of the pope's economic and social teachings, excerpts of which were provided Sunday to The Associated Press.
Specifically, Francis summarized a verse from the Gospel of Matthew which is the essential mission statement of his papacy: "I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was in prison, I was sick, I was naked and you helped me, clothed me, visited me, took care of me."
"Caring for our neighbor, for those who are poor, who suffer in body and soul, for those who are in need: this is the touchstone. Is it pauperism? No. It is the Gospel."
Editor's notes: Speaking as an ex-pastor, I can tell you this: as far as the Bible is concerned, the poor are the responsibility of the church, per se, not the intended subjects of a political solution (i.e. Communism, Socialism, a totalitarian dictator, or, some form of Capitalism). When men like Obama, men who are opposed to religious conscience, opposed to the ethics of faith and biblical motivations, opposed to the place of the church in society (any society), when these secularists stand up and quote the Bible in definding their godless agenda, well, that is a little too much for this old man.
I am not one who thinks the Pope is a commie, but I do think his words go too far, at least in the sense that they are used by the godless to advance the notion of a world without faith.
What is presented in the AP quote, above, is absolutely true. What often gets missed, however, in this discussion is this, the biblical message has nothing to do with secular politics, except as members of the political community are influenced and guided by the biblical message.
In other words, the Revelation/Guide is not for unbelievers as unbeleivers. Rather, it is God's historical plan for the believing community. Does God save the unbeliever? Maybe. I mean, he sent Jonah to Ninevah to get them to change their ways, not to convert them to Judaism, right? Does that make the Revelation, a handbook for a godless political system? Absolutely not. Understand that when the Bible says, "Without faith, you cannot please Him," it means to include the idea that "without faith, you cannot understand God's message." We believe so that we might understand, not the other way around. Esoterics, dude, esoterics.
I am thinking the Pope should rephrase some of his commentary. Maybe he does believe Communism is a better system. I don't know. But I do know that sharing wealth with the truly poor, helping our fellowman, working to lift up those lost in a godless society, are works of the church, not the end game of a political solution that is written and defended by the godless and the unbeliever.
The Pope understands the concept of Christ-like, unlike the system of government worshipped by conservatives in America that rewards greed whose driving force is the profit motive. Conservatives believe a person who is motivated by greed will create benefits for everyone, such as employment, and the development of new goods and services. Let the rich get richer, the saying goes, and the benefits will "trickle down" to the rest of us. "A rising tide raises all boats." The problem is, as the Pope has stated, it doesn't work, the money flows to the top, and poor get poorer.
ReplyDeleteConcern for the poor is not merely a private matter to be handled by the church. The Bible calls upon the rulers to create a just society. In a democracy, we have the power to make the rules. The actions of the nation are extensions of our own actions. We have inherited a system that works efficiently to produce tremendous wealth, but fails to distribute that wealth equitably. It neglects the poor and it corrupts the rich. On both counts it destroys community. A decent life for all is a matter of simple justice, not charity. What kind of a 'pastor' believes that greed should be rewarded?
The Pope understands that for Jesus, helping the poor and the outcast is not optional: it is the essence of what it means to love God. Jesus spoke often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God," to the rich he said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, ... go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich couldn't follow his command he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Conservatives are fixated on 'entitlements' - handouts that supposedly contribute to moral decay. Jesus was more concerned about the moral decay in those who are so attached to their wealth that they would hoard it for themselves. Greed may be a driving force for the economy, but Jesus saw it is as destructive to community.
The law of Moses and the Bible provided an institutional way of providing for the poor. Not only was individual generosity encouraged, but, as a matter of law, part of everyone's produce or income was to be set aside to aid the poor:
"And you shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove. (Exodus 23:10-11)
"When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied. (Deuteronomy 26:12)
The Pope understands Christ. Today's conservatives have proven repeatedly they worship the false Gd of capitalism and greed, a fake church. The Pope is not the one 'who has gone too far' when we look at the data trend of income inequality in America the past 15 yrs.
http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20111029_WOC689.gif
You write: Conservatives believe a person who is motivated by greed will create benefits for everyone, such as employment, and the development of new goods and services. Of course, this is a true statement. Liberals believe this as well.
DeleteYou write: What kind of a 'pastor' believes that greed should be rewarded? Strawman argument. The point is not the reward of greed, but the fact of the matter is that the greedy always are rewarded, whether they are communists in leadership, Democrat insiders in congress, or whatever.
You write: Conservatives are fixated on 'entitlements' - handouts that supposedly contribute to moral decay. No more a conservative fixation than the 43 million on food stamps, or the Green Lobbyists who now out number all other lobby categories, or the sense of entitlement of a president who gets angry when someone, anyone, challenges his sense of direction, or the Wall Street CEO who demands more “free money” from a man (Obama) who is more than willing to give them all the money they demand.
You write: The law of Moses and the Bible provided an institutional way of providing for the poor. The Old Testament was not a law for the world, but a law for the Jewish state, alone . . . . . period. The New Testament is not about institutional charity, except as it is centered in the church. But how would you know this, since you only believe in the Bible when trying to challenge people of faith?
You quote Exodus and Deuteronomy but do not understand any about “context.” Again, the Old Covenant was for the Jews only.
Finally, inequality is a Democrat creation, much more than it is an issue created by any other political party affiliation. Almost everyone in the GOP is working class, blue collar, and white collar non-CEO types. Almost everyone in the Progressive Party, are those who are part of the entitlement generation. They are not middle class at all, if “middle class” is defined by the term “working class.”
Point of fact: there is no textual evidence that Jesus did not endorse the old Testament, and quite the contrary. Any 'pastor' should know this. Jesus strongly approves of the law of the OT and the prophets. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." - Matthew 5:17
DeleteJesus even quotes Moses and the OT law - “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7
Again, there is no explicit textual proof from the New Testament that supports the idea that the Old Testament (or the Law) is invalid. There is no disagreement or change.
"I and the Father are one.” - John 10:30
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." - James 1:17
Jesus is seen as fulfilling, not rejecting the Old Testament. Any so-called 'pastor' should know this. And to say it is 'just for Jews' is a convenient cop out.
In fulfilling the law, he ended the law. What do you think his blood sacrifice was all about. But, more than this, New Covenant scripture makes this clear: There is Paul's contrast of the inward man to the outward, law abiding man (Rom 2:27-29); Pauls illustration in Romans 7:1-7 showing the end of one law and the beginning of another; you have Jeremiah 31:31-34 which makes it clear that new law will not be similar to the old law; in Romans 6:18ff, Paul contrasts Adam with the new Adam (Jsesus). All of the book of Galatians about works of the flesh, of which Paul includes works of the law. In Eph. 2:15, Paul specifically posits the the Law as being "abolished." And in the eaqrly chapters of Romans, Paul contrast the New Law and the Old Law when he speaks of the law of faith and the law of works.
DeleteYou wrote: Again, there is no explicit textual proof from the New Testament that supports the idea that the Old Testament (or the Law) is invalid. There is no disagreement or change. Obviously, you spoke too soon. I wrote my college thesis on this very subject. You should have this debate with someone who does not know what he is talking about. Either that, sit down and study this out for yourself.
Paul, yea, who never met Jesus, never heard him preach, never met any of his immediate disciples, and most scholars believe Paul didn't even speak the same language as Jesus (Aramaic) he spoke Hebrew... and you base this thesis on Paul. But what did Jesus say to refute the Old Testament?
DeleteGo back to school if you don't know, or perhaps you could consult real scholar.
Almost no scholars believe any of what you write about Paul. If you want to be under the Old Law, fine with me. Just know that having flunked Faith 101 does not qualify you for any religious discussion. You have no exegetical rules, none. I already answered that last question. Really, you are way out of your element on this. Go back to preaching socialism and godless revolution. You are much better at that. Paul met Jesus in Acts 9. Paul spoke and wrote, in parts, Aramaic and common Greek. Apparently you don't know that Christ came to minister to the Jew ONLY (Matt 15:24). You don't understand that when you fulfill a law, you take it out of existence. You have not read the Sermon on the Mount or you would know that Christ was contrasting the inward law (his new law) with the outward requirements of the Old Law. You did not address Jere 31:31-34 that speaks of a new covenant that would not be similar to the old . . . or maybe you only believe in the four or five verses you use in this debate. Pathetic.
DeleteI would be interested if your Anonymous opponent only believes in the Old Testament and the Gospels. Does he believe that Christ is God ? Does he believe in the virgin birth or the miracles or the resurrection? And Paul certainly knew the original apostles, or most of them, if one believes the Book of Acts. Is this what you mean by him "flunking Faith 101?"
DeleteThe man is not a believer by his own admission, which means, he has no qualified opinions of his own. He is a cut and paste "theologian," a man who opposes "God" in his life to any degree whatsoever. But his arrogance drives him to argue against just about anything that is presented in this blog. A very talented man who has no sense for his own arrogance.
DeletePaul was never a follower of Jesus and did not know Jesus before his crucifixion. Paul's conversion occurred after Jesus' crucifixion. Paul (Saul) NEVER MET JESUS. No person with any competent religious training can dispute this.
DeletePaul claimed that he had personal acquaintance with 'the resurrected Jesus,' even though he had never met him during his lifetime. Such acquaintance, he claimed, gained through 'visions.' Yes, and these supposed 'visions' form the basics of what the Christians believe today... (like the Mormons with Joe Smith's Golden Plates). All about 'a vision'.
The information given about Paul in Acts was written by Luke, a person very committed to the 'Pauline cause.'
Like much of the Bible, there exists many inconsistencies and contradictions. It appears from Acts that Paul's birthplace was Tarsus, a city in Asia Minor (Acts 9:11, and 21:39, and 22:3). Strangely enough, Paul himself never mentions that he came from Tarsus. Instead, he gives the following information about his origins: 'I am an Israelite myself, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin' (Romans 11:2); and '... circumcised on my eighth day, Israelite by race, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born and bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee....' (Philippians 3:5). The young Saul, we are told, left Tarsus and came to the Land of Israel, where he studied in the Pharisee academy of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Yet Paul himself, in his letters, never mentions that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, even when he is most concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee.
Paul's claims to an orthodox Pharisaic Jewish are false. Many of Paul's writings sound authentic to the uninitiated, they actually betray an ignorance of the original Hebrew scripture and the subtleties of Jewish Law. Paul relied heavily on Greek texts that no actual Pharisee would ever use. Paul fused the historical story of Jesus' crucifixion with elements of contemporary Hellenistic religions and Gnosticism, developing the 'new' non-Judaic mythic ideas as the Trinity and the Last Supper. Paul also made an attempt to find prophetic justification for his newly created myth in the Old Testament. He was instrumental in 'inventing' Christianity, in a way Jesus never envisioned or attempted.
Your lesson for the day. This is the foundation of your beliefs.
Funny, what we know about Paul's conversion to Christianity comes from Luke, as you mention. You discredit Luke, stripping him of his allegiance to Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of God, and you do so for obvious reason: you can't allow Luke's testimony to be independent because an independent witness from an educated and professional member of the first century, does your brand of atheism, no good. You glibly claim that Paul's assertion of being a Pharisaic Jew is false, but offer only your opinion as proof for your denial, hardly an example of "critical thinking." In other words, if I were to ask, "Why do you deny Paul's testimony about himself?" you would answer, "Because I said so." Sounds kind of silly, don't you think. In fact, everything you say, is the opinion of an unbeliever, an atheist, if you will. Of course you challenge accepted history and credible testimony about Paul. You HAVE to. Either that, or convert to a life of surrender, and you sure as hell can't do that, right? I mean, you are a stud athlete, an accomplished musician, a single man living with someone you haven't married (commitment issues ??), a man who thinks he is what he is because of personal effort and an acquired intellect, when, in fact, it is all by the grace of God. Your denials are no different from dozens I have listened to over the years. Anyone can make up reasons for not believing.
DeleteYou have no clue how it is that Christ ministered to the Jew, only (Matt 15:24) , yet, died for the all of humanity (John 3:16). You ignore the fact that Christ confronted the Law at every turn, challenging the present day religious hierarchy, the accepted Jewish traditions of the day, and the very heart of the Law in his famous "Sermon on the Mount." In Matt 5:21,22, for example, he (Christ) begins to contrast the Law's requirements, with his own opinions. Paul's teachings only confirm and expand on this dichotomy. All elements of Paul's theology are rooted and exemplified in the life and teachings of Jesus. In the Sermon, Christ argues for a time when the Law's requirements will be fulfilled (Matt 5:17), yet you see no connection between that statement, and his declaration, "It is finished," as he hung on the cross, having ended or fulfilled, the Law's requirements. How is it, that Christ came to the Jews, only, according to his own words, but died for all of humanity, without bringing to an end the Jewish law, without changing the very nature of the Law? You will have no answer for that question.
And, so, you honor your own self-absorbed opinions (of just about everything) as you pretend you know better than anyone else. The problem with you existentialists is this: you are your own authority as individuals within the larger, existential, community. Sorry, but your values as to living life have no authority outside of your own life. So take a breath, live in your denials, and surrender to the fact that you have no authoritative answers or sense of direction for anyone else, other than yourself. .
Tell us pastor, how many of the Gospels were written by people who actually met the man Jesus, (and we're not talking about visions).
DeleteOnly if you promise to convert, news of which will prompt me to drive to Tenn and welcome you into the family . . . . . seriously
DeleteCouldn't keep holding my breath. Matt and John were apostles; Luke knew all the apostles and they had to be the source(s) of his information. Mark was was the student of Peter and probably wrote his gospel under Peter's supervision.
DeleteFirst, the Gospels were actually penned anonymously. Second, the gospels remained untitled until the second half of the 2nd c. The gospels recognized today were quoted in the first half of the 2nd c., but always anonymously. Names begin to appear about the year 180. By then there were a lot of gospels, many more than just four. Third, Jesus spoke Aramaic, the evangelists spoke Greek. The Gospels were written in Greek. The piece of John's Gospel, dated to 125, is so far the oldest copy of a Gospel to be found. So many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself. Biblical scholars estimate that the Gospel of Mark was written around 70, the Gospel of Matthew around 80, the Gospel of Luke around 90, and the Gospel of John around 90-100.
DeleteThese authors never met Jesus. It's just a story, like Joe Smith's gold plates.
Did you know that early Islamic history was in the form of oral tradition? Ditto for Judaism and . . . shazam . . . . for Christianity. Authorship for the gospels began to appear at the turn of the first century (90 to 110 AD) with the earliest gospel fragment being from Mark in or near 50 AD - just 12 to 15 years after the Resurrection of Christ. There was no revisionist process for the any of the books of the Bible. Textual criticism (for the Bible) is the most involved witness for The Book than any other ancient book in history. When scribes made copies of the Gospels or letters, if they made a mistake, they would destroy that entire page or scroll and begin anew, adding to our confidence in the accuracy of the record. You have proven nothing. Much of what you have cut and pasted into your comment, is acceptable, as long as the reader understands that the historicity of the biblical record is not exacting. The fact that the Gospels had no signatures, only attests to the purpose of the message of the Gospel. Those writers, all very religious men out of the Jewish tradition except for Luke, did not want to detract from what they wrote. Early Christianity was about only one name, that of Jesus of Nazareth. I have given you a fair hearing. Now, move on. You are not a qualified critic of the biblical text. In fact, you reject the entire message of the Old and the New Testaments . . . so change the subject to something you know something about. I will not publish any more of your opinionated drivel on the subject.
Delete"There was no revisionist process for the any of the books of the Bible." - Ridiculous, easily proven wrong by facts, by people who have made this their life work and know much more about it than you. You are invested in an idea, you are not impartial or open to new information on this (and many other) matter(s).
DeleteThere are so many examples... John 7:53-8:12 for instance. The story of Jesus saying, “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.” This story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes. The story is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John, nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John. Serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible.
The part of Mark that states : "And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them. - Mark 16:17 - none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark. It was added by a later scribe.
The King James version was of course not given by God, but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early 17th century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.
So many more examples to prove this blog editor doesn't know his own subject.
Game over.
Joe Smith's Gold Plates.
Variant readings are hardly evidence of a revisionist process. The former takes us nowhere; the later, in terms of a revisionary process, would establish a new reality -- kind of like what anti-colonialist do with the historicity of the Founding Fathers or the War in Iraq, or the Bush Economy, or the Reagan's triumph over the Russian Pigs of their old world order. "Anonymous" is motivated by disbelief. All of his arguments are settled in that reality. He does not believe in an indwelling Christ, the veracity of the biblical message or the continuity of "revealed" history. His comments, immediately above, come from this dark portion of his reality.
DeleteHe points to John 7:53 thru chapter 8:12 as if he has a handle on some sort of esoteric truth about the ancient biblical record. One of the several advanced Greek books in my library is a greek new testament, published in 1966 (and I have owned it since 1967 when I entered seminary) by Aland, Black, Metzger, and Wikgren. The reader has never heard of these men, but an advanced greek student probably has. My reason for bringing up this publication is this: this particular greek publication contains the accepted greek text (written in greek) of the new testament AND a technical apparatus that evaluates and grades every verse in the gk n.t. Here is what this publication says about John 7:53 ff., "omit 7:53-8:11." In other words, John 7:53 and verses following (thru 8:11) is a variant reading with virtually no early manuscript support, and should not be included in the translated biblical text. The King James bible has the passage in question, the New King James Bible does not, neither do the New American Standard Version, the New Living Bible, the English Standard Version, the NIV, or any translation that utilizes the manuscript discoveries of the 20th century. The King James has this passage because some 900 mss contain the wording. The others do not, because the manuscript discoveries of the 1900's, many of them very early manuscripts of the Message, do not. Anonymous is camping on very very old "news."
Question: does the inclusion of this variant reading change the biblical message in terms of its message on grace, forgiveness, or the need for self evaluation? Of course not. And that is why I say, ""There was no revisionist process for the any of the books of the Bible." A revisionary process would take us from point A to point B. The variant readings cited by our uneducated "biblical scholar" (that would be "Anonymous"), change nothing about the message of the revealed text. That is the critical observation, here. I am surprised that Anonymous also selected Mark 16:17-18 as an example when Mark 16:9 thru 20 is a much larger passage with less ancient manuscript support. Again, none of the variant readings effect the over-all message of scripture. The biblical text remains the most confirmed [ancient] text in the history of mankind. Joe Smith and his Book of Mormon, btw, has no ancient text to which we can study or use to verify Mormon "revelation." None. Zero. The translation is inspired. Not so with the Bible. Only the original texts of the Bible were inspired, and all of those "originals" have been lost. Ironically, Anonymous knows what he knows only because of biblical scholarship.
Worth hearing from an Old Testament scholar on this one, Dr. Walter Brueggemann is widely considered one of the most influential Old Testament scholars of the last several decades.
ReplyDeleteHere he speaks about the 'military consumerist mentality' ...
"We in the United States live in a deathly social context that’s marked by consumerism and militarism and the loss of the common good. Younger people that are committed to the gospel have to think carefully about how to critique that dominant system of military consumerism and how to imagine alternative forms of life that are not defined by those corrosive pressures.
That’s a very demanding job, but I suspect that the gospel at its best has always been a summons to think about how the world can be practiced differently.
That ideological system causes us to be very afraid, to regard other people as competitors, or as threats, or as rivals. It causes us to think of the world in very frightened and privatistic forms.
The gospel very much wants us to think in terms of a neighborhood, in terms of being in solidarity with other people, in sharing our resources, and of living out beyond ourselves. The gospel contradicts the dominant values of our system, which encourages self-protection and self-sufficiency at the loss of the common good. The church is in some ways a reflection of those dominant values.
A paradigmatic example is the conversation that we’ve had about healthcare, the Affordable Care Act. Providing healthcare for all of our citizens is a mandate for any workable society. Our resistance reflects our kind of privatized notion that everyone ought to get what they can pay for – and if they can’t pay for it, they ought not to get it. And [that] identifies and fosters a kind of disadvantaged class that is excluded from all of the resources of society.
You can watch while the differences between people who have a lot and people who have a little or nothing — that gap grows and grows. You can’t have a viable society if you organize the economy that way. You can take it in terms of healthcare delivery, education, or in terms of housing or any of the social goods. If you do not have a practice of neighborliness, society becomes unlivable."
....Read the complete interview
http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2015/01/09/walter-brueggemann-church-gospel-bible/35739
Never heard of Brueggemann, and neither did you before you decided to gin up this discussion.
Delete“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church. The other communities cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles." - Pope Benedict XVI
ReplyDeletePopes are infallible, your religion is invalid.
Sorry
Soooo, you accept the Pope's infallibility? We both know you do not . . . . so it seems rather stupid for you to keep on with your uneducated rant.
DeleteQuestion: does the inclusion of this variant reading change the biblical message in terms of its message on grace, forgiveness, or the need for self evaluation? No.
ReplyDeleteIs it an indication of the validity of the remainder of the Bible in terms of historical accuracy, supernatural claims, and the basis for a literal fundamental belief? Very likely yes.
Religion fulfills a human need. Why else would people so desperately cling?
“It seems to me the most obvious decision a person could make in their life: do I want to make real-world policy decided on the basis of proven facts and the reaches of what humans have achieved in science? Or do I want real-world decisions made based on ancient myths written by men who didn’t know what a germ or an atom was, or where the sun went at night?” -- Bill Maher
Blogger says: "All of his arguments are settled in that reality. " Just eliminate one word, and you've got it right. (that)
Scholarship, proof, and evidence trumps dogma every time.
Bart Ehrman
From the editor: you might be interested in my discussion with Ehrman. Since you accept what this man says without any critical analysis, you might be surprised with the difficulties he had in defending his faith failures. Go to :
http://barthandtheboyz.blogspot.com/search/label/Bart%20Ehrman
Very good discussion. The editor has obviously thought things out. One of my sons and I have followed this discussion . . . and it has done us both a lot of good. My boy actually was needing some the answers given by the editor. Again, very good discussion, on the part of both in this discussion.
ReplyDelete