ICANT, there is a common repeated theme of several of Jesus's parables where the rich and poor are concerned. That fact, that this theme is stressed over and over should not go unnoticed.
Further the treatment of the least of society is touched on not only in Matt 25 but also in Luke 16.
In Luke 16 the rich man's claims to external virtue did not compensate for his neglect of the poor man Lazarus. Simple lesson that a child could understand.
But apply your methodology here, Jesus is simply referring to some "rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen" that "lived in luxury every day" - he was not referring to a special redeemed child of god such as yourself - these are lesson for others.
iceage, do you have any understanding of the end time events that will take place at the second coming of Jesus
And what does flawed eschatology have to do with your responsibilities of those who hunger and applying the golden rule?
You are putting up a large smoke screen.
BTW I can direct you to many "Born again child of the King" scholars that would disagree strongly with your chain of events. I recommend you post this as a new thread you will find disagreements by others who consider themselves "born again".
It is not, as you suggest, merely the confusion of those not born again.
You were the one who brought up material goods as a "benefit" of being one of God's children. You have spent the whole thread talking about how God has blessed you materially.
God has blessed me materially, He has blessed me physically, He has blessed me with the most wonderful woman in the world, He has blessed me with the most wonderful Church in the world, He has blessed me with some of the most wonderful opportunities in the world.
I have been privileged to go overseas on many mission trips. I am not going to tell you how much of the things I have done that you accuse me of not doing because if I did you would say I was bragging. I won't tell you how many years of those I spent working that I was pastoring small churches that could not afford a pastor.
Yes God has been good to me and for me. BTW the bank account is small. So God is going to have to take care of my needs until He calls me home on His retirement plan.
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
Spin Matt. 25 any way you want but it remains that Jesus is judging the nations for their treatment of the Jewish nation as God had promised Abraham.
Are you suggesting that God will reward eternal life and deal out eternal punishment based on nationality? Abraham is not mentioned anywhere and the "least of these" is not a code word for the Jewish nation.
The division is based on the acts of kindness and mercy done by people to the disadvantaged. Further, Jesus identifies such kindness with kindness towards himself. A simple message that I believe your are trying to make more complex for obvious reasons.
matthew 25 writes:
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
That is a personal message not one to nations.
Are you saying then that the rich man went to hell because he would not feed and clothe Lazarus?
There are most likely parallel meanings (as is the case with Matt 25). However the central issue of social injustice is in escapable - that those with plenty who ignore those with needs will be punished.
This is inline with Christ's character that repeatedly spoke of not only detachment of possessions and relationships but even your own life - he did not speak of comfort and material blessing.
Now if I was to tell you that in l965 science said I was dead for 3 hours and 20 minutes, and in that time I saw the City The New Jerusalem and the river of life that flows from the throne of God you would say, I was crazy, went off the deep end, was deluded or many other things you could think of. So I won't tell you that.
Too bad then. Until you tell me, you don't know what I would say.
You can only nurture your 'chosen belief' about what what I would say. That is a conjecture you have chosen not to test against reality.
You choose to believe man and man's wisdom.
I choose nothing of the kind.
Belief is an automatic, honest response that arises in me when something strikes me as credible. It is a response far less likely to arise in me, I notice, when a proposition seems incredible or insufficiently demonstrated.
Can't help it. Just happens that way. It's how belief works.
Your beliefs work the same way. Your real beliefs, I mean.
One cannot choose to believe. One is convinced or one isn't. Beliefs are those things you feel you know, really know, even when you are alone.
One can choose alignments, though. One can choose manifestos and creeds, which can then be regurgitated when one wants to make a ritual declaration of loyalty...
Now my testimony: I believe God. I believe God... I believe...
I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe...
I believe Jesus... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I believe... I choose to believe all these things... I choose to believe God.
Lets see I have a beautiful waterfront home, a 2007 Entourage van, a 2007 Nissan pickup, and a farm. They are all paid for all I have to pay is the taxes each year to the government to keep them.
. . . .
My God has supplied all these things.
Atheism would have given me the following: DrJones told me... Doddy told me... Stile said... Ringo said...
Would you like to add anything?
No. But God would.
He says to tell you that if you make three more testimonies like the one above, he'll throw in a free GPS with that 2007 Nissan pickup.
Do you choose to believe God, or not?
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : ongoing quest for literary perfection.
Cladistics, which the Museum has played an important role in developing, is the grouping of organisms by shared, specialized characteristics; each time a new evolutionary feature appears, a new branch grows on the evolutionary tree, comprising organisms that have both the old traits and the new one. Thus the display in the back shows that some later horses, such as Calippus, are actually smaller than earlier ones, and that other later horses, such as Neohipparion, still had three toes. This display is therefore both a classic demonstration of evolution and a paradigm of scientific method at the Museum.
Okay, I'm stumped. What am I supposed to be refuting here?