Posted on 03/02/2008 2:59:28 PM PST by Terriergal
Or these.
Rth 1:19 ¶ So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, [Is] this Naomi?
Rth 1:20 And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara: for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.
Rth 1:21 I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me home again empty: why [then] call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?
yup... and really, do we want justice? or mercy?
I think so too.
Those who trumpet their good deeds on the street corners to be seen and praised by men.
btw his miraculous signs were to verify that he was the Messiah — it was all about him, not those who benefited from the signs and wonders. In fact those who were fed were rebuked the next day for wanting to be fed, and he essentially drove them away with his hard words.
why don’t you spend some time on Sojo.net and figure out what I’m talking about. Why are you on here saying “I’m not with Warren or Wallis” and then say exactly what they say?
btw authority? Are you saying we all need a pope to interpret scripture for us? Or are we all free to use the grammatical historical method?
Its plain from all of Scripture that the poverty which Jesus sets free from is spiritual poverty. He has nothing to say about wealth being a benefit of faith. interpret your poverty passages in that overarching light. I already said no one will say that we are NOT supposed to do good things for people.
Over thirty years ago, I subscribed to Sojourners for a year and found that it substituted 1960's liberal government-centered solutions for Christian obedience.
I never renewed. I repudiate that.
However to the extent that they say that individual Christians (and churches) have a Biblical duty to help those in need, they are right on!
It is a clear scriptural teaching.
I do not recognize the authority of either the pope or the Roman Church as infallible.
I do believe that, as an Orthodox Christian, I have a duty to interpret the scripture in the context of what the church has taught from the beginning.
I take it that the grammatical historical method (in which I was trained at an Evangelical seminary) is incomplete if it ignores the way that the early church understood the scripture. Ignoring the writings of the early Christians is ignoring the context in which the text was originally understood.
And, you, are big on keeping the context in mind. :-)
Let me deal with the other part of your post. You wrote:
Its plain from all of Scripture that the poverty which Jesus sets free from is spiritual poverty. He has nothing to say about wealth being a benefit of faith.
Amen! That is so clear. The health and wealth "gospel" is heresy.
Interpret your poverty passages in that overarching light.
Paul told us that "not many rich ... are called" but to those who are:
1Ti 6:17 As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy.
1Ti 6:18 They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share,
It seems that verse 17 deals with spiritual riches while verse 18 talks about material wealth. They are complementary.
Since this is St. Paul's commands to a pastor (Timothy), it surely seems to be something we need to hear from the pulpit still, today.
aka N.T. Wright.
One of the key suspects in the New Perspectives on Paul heresy.
If so, then they've been infiltrated by leftists.
I disagree partly. The miracles were to establish that Jesus was the Messiah, yes, but they were also 1) a model of the behavior His believers was supposed to display: kindness and mercy and 2) a means of getting people’s attention, so they would be receptive to teaching. When Jesus rebuked people for demanding signs and wonders, he was really attacking the professional skeptics like the Pharisees, who would not accept the miracles which had already been displayed, and did not have simple childlike faith.
Yes, the Lord wants us to do whatever we can to alleviate the suffering of others. I'll repeat. . .He wants US to do it. . .He doesn't want us to relegate it to the government.
How we AS INDIVIDUALS treat the naked, hungry, cold, thirsty, imprisoned (by mental or physical illness, immobility, fear, friendlessness or by burdensome caregiving, as well as those locked up because they committed crimes) and the strangers in our midst. Not how many CDs or t-shirts we buy or tax receipts we gather for what we imagine is charity.
Jesus never asked for “activism” — he always made it personal.
Maybe it should say “...the least of these, my brothers, ... “ (meaning, “the least of these, guys...”) It would change the meaning of the sentence would it not?
I suspect they removed the Parable of the Talents.
Christian leader and commentator Tony Campolo added, “Here’s proof that faith without commitment to justice for the poor is a sham, because it ignores the most explicit of all the social concerns of Scripture.”
Bible Society staff and experts spent months debating and sifting through the Contemporary English Version (CEV) Bible to pull out the verses that say something about God’s attitude to poverty and justice. The result was more than 2,000 sections, with almost every page from Genesis to Revelation emphasizing just and fair behavior
First three reasons not to get this Bible:
1. Rick Warren
2. Tony Campolo
3. The CEV 2
Ah hadn't put that together... that figures!
...or just plain bums.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.