|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: You Will Always Have the Poor | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The question is whether they are helping the poor enough. If you've given your last two mites, you've done all you can but if you keep one mite back for yourself....
Why are you so intent on accusing Christians of failure to help the poor when in fact they've always been known for the opposite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
How does it make it an eternal commandment? Mark's Jesus reminds the disciples that after the coming events, they will still need to help the poor. Matthew's Jesus does not remind the disciples of this and so Jesus never leads center stage.
Sounds to me like you're trying to make it that way. Not at all. I'm pointing out that it is a possible way to interpret Matthew's omission. That this scene was and has been perplexing to Christians is supported by the discussion Christians have around the issue and the fact that early gospel writers saw it necessary to edit this story in each of their retellings.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
In fact, the Catholic Church is urging that we not interpret Jesus words in exactly the way that you are doing in the OP. I have no favored interpretation. But there is a discussion among Christians surrounding this and it's probably because folks realize the scene causes some difficulty with Jesus' general attitude toward the poor.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That still doesn't answer the question.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Mark's Jesus reminds the disciples that after the coming events, they will still need to help the poor. Matthew's Jesus does not remind the disciples of this and so Jesus never leads center stage. No, that's not right. You're really stretching on that one. And its not really about Jesus being center stage. He was just saying that it was okay for her to anoint Him with expensive oils instead of giving that money to the poor because she wouldn't have the opportunity to do so in the future like they would still have the opportunity to help the poor in the future. The other point is that is okay to use money to glorify God and you don't have stop doing that because you're suppose to be helping the poor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But there is a discussion among Christians surrounding this and it's probably because folks realize the scene causes some difficulty with Jesus' general attitude toward the poor. I don't think it causes difficulty. The straight-forward reading is plainly understandable. The problem is that it can be used by people as support for their already held position of just not feeling like helping the poor that much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I think you are missing my point.
Matthew and John have made changes to the scene. Those changes alter the meaning of the story.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The problem is that it can be used by people as support for their already held position of just not feeling like helping the poor that much. Okay. And aside from dismissing the whole thing, what can be said to counter those interpretations?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 37:
I think you are missing my point. Matthew and John have made changes to the scene. Those changes alter the meaning of the story. I don't think they change the meaning of the story. The story means what I've been saying. They've changed some of the details, but those don't alter the meaning. When Matthew omits the line about still being able to help the poor when you want, it is not saying that you don't ever have to help the poor again. And John's additions shed more light on the reasoning behind what Jesus said: Judas was asking out of greed instead of actually wanting to help the poor. From Message 38:
The problem is that it can be used by people as support for their already held position of just not feeling like helping the poor that much.
Okay. And aside from dismissing the whole thing, what can be said to counter those interpretations? quote: quote: quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
They've changed some of the details, but those don't alter the meaning. Then what's the purpose of the changes?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Then what's the purpose of the changes? I'm not convinced they were on purpose. Assuming they were, John's just provides additional details and Matthew's seems to be trying to take the focus off of the poor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm not convinced they were on purpose. All that stuff about Judas was just John's pen slipping? Don't be ridiculous. The changes were intentional.
Assuming they were, John's just provides additional details... Why did John feel those details were necessary?
Matthew's seems to be trying to take the focus off of the poor. Okay. And why did Matthew want to take away that focus? Do you, personally, see anything wrong with Mark's account? Do you feel either Matthew's or John's versions to be improvements?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The changes were intentional. I meant that I'm not convinced they were changed to fulfill the purpose of altering the meaning of the story.
Why did John feel those details were necessary? I don't know. John added in all kinds of details throughout the Gospel.
And why did Matthew want to take away that focus? I don't know.
Do you, personally, see anything wrong with Mark's account? No.
Do you feel either Matthew's or John's versions to be improvements? Not Matthews's, although the line he omitted was a little redundant. John's additional details are an improvement if they're true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I have no favored interpretation. But there is a discussion among Christians surrounding this and it's probably because folks realize the scene causes some difficulty with Jesus' general attitude toward the poor. It provides an excuse for people who need such a thing. However a person would equate his own situation with that of Jesus impending death on the cross surely misses the entire point, if indeed that person is not a complete ass. And while you claim to have no favored interpretation, the one you are using for this thread is one that none of the posters here who claim to be Christians accept as correct. It is certainly possible to read the truth from Matthew's words. Why are you insisting that the writer actually meant something else? It is, in fact, the Gospel according to Matthew, that is of the most assistance when chiding dispensationalists and no works people who claim to have faith about their duty to serve the poor. There is no reason to assume that in this one instance Matthew offers an excuse to those same lay abouts.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And while you claim to have no favored interpretation, the one you are using for this thread is one that none of the posters here who claim to be Christians accept as correct. It is certainly possible to read the truth from Matthew's words. Why are you insisting that the writer actually meant something else? You are mistaking me asking questions with me having a hard-and-fast opinion on this matter.
It is, in fact, the Gospel according to Matthew, that is of the most assistance when chiding dispensationalists and no works people who claim to have faith about their duty to serve the poor. There is no reason to assume that in this one instance Matthew offers an excuse to those same lay abouts. That makes Matthew's omission all the more strange, don't you think?Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024