Spiritual DiscussionsThis is the place at AW for mamas to learn about all different religions and beliefs, to ask questions, to give answers- all done with respect! if you don't have anything nice to say here- don't say anything at all.
Obviously, in my views of Christianity, that which is being accused of being Socialistic in our country are rather Christian (or WWHJD?). That said, I also realize that not all (or even many) Christians feel similarly. I just want to understand how it is that we all interpret Jesus' message so differently. I doubt my view will be swayed, but I do want to understand how people come to their opinions.
__________________
Jonathan
Louisburg Cider Mill
October 2009
"Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?
Jesus said until him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And, the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments have all the law and the prophets."
For years now I have been debating with friends and family on the question of whether the United States can (and should) be called a "Christian nation," and for the record, I have always argued a vehement no. But maybe I'm missing the point. What if I conceded that question, just for the sake of argument? What if I let go of my adherence to the dogmatic belief that the United States is and should be based on secularism and enlightenment values? Just how might it change things? What would it look like if we considered the nation's most pressing policy questions through the lens of "Christian" principles? What would it mean if the right was right?
i'm interested in the same thing. you might enjoy this...i sure did!
That's interesting. I have to hand about three to five bibles and they all are different enough versions that even very basic things like John 3:16 is phrased differently. I would never EVER be confident enough to say that one specific bible was the right one and every single other version was wrong. Given the known distortions with the franks not liking the Pope and that war, the English Church, I think the celtic-germanic people were involved but I can't remember if they happened before or after the frankish thing; the one guy who translated the Bible into Latin, Caesar . . . Knowing that what I know for history is the least of what happened. I couldn't ever make that judgement.
Do you know what hermeneutics is? There are principles and methods to Biblical interpretation. Every Bible you have is based on the Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). They are translated in different ways, based on several different theories.
Word-for-word translations, such as the King James version and the English Standard Version, well, the ESV page says it best Translation Philosophy The goal is to stick as closely as possible to the original language.
Thought-for-thought translations, such as the popular New International Version New International Version (NIV Bible) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com take a different method. They still stick to the original texts, but they look at a whole phrase and then translate it, based on knowledge of Greek and Hebrew syntax, thought, etc.
There are also translations like the Message, which strive to capture the tone and conversational language of the original texts.
So, yes, they say different things. But it's not presumptuous to say that a passage or verse can be interpreted incorrectly. Good Bible study techniques include reading the whole passage, not just taking a verse in isolation. Also a good Bible commentary will help you understand the Background of the time, as well as the Greek and/or Hebrew of that passage, and why it was written in that way. One also has to take into account the whole Bible. It does not contradict itself, so if a verse appears to contradict another verse, then perhaps the reading of it is not correct.
I do not know Hebrew and Greek, but my DH does. He studied both languages while in seminary. I can look up individual words in the greek and Hebrew, which sometimes will help. But I rely on my DH and/or Bible commentaries if I have more in-depth questions.
So, Ann is not saying that her version is right and every other version is wrong. (at least, I think I know her well enough to say she doesn't believe that. There are some who hold that view, and most of them are King James-only followers). She is saying that if you're not reading the whole passage, and understanding what it was written to address, it's possible (and happens a lot) to misunderstand what the verse is saying.
Now, in this particular case? I'm not sure. I didn't read it all fully yet. I can't comment on how they may be taken out of context or not.
I just said it was interesting. I'm sorry if my interest was offensive to you Heather. And I hope that Ann knows I'm just interested that she made that statement. I meant no offense to her, just that I found it interesting. I was hoping that she might reply with whta studies she's done on the area and in what time period. The last stuff I was reading involved the whole Nordic-Frankish-Papal war, but the last time I was really sick I had to put it down. My main hinderance there is the language barrier.
And yes, I know what hermeneutics is, which is why I was saying about the history of Europe. I forgot Africa <blush> though, and I know I'm forgetting something else major. I need some juice.
I just said it was interesting. I'm sorry if my interest was offensive to you Heather. And I hope that Ann knows I'm just interested that she made that statement. I meant no offense to her, just that I found it interesting. I was hoping that she might reply with whta studies she's done on the area and in what time period. The last stuff I was reading involved the whole Nordic-Frankish-Papal war, but the last time I was really sick I had to put it down. My main hinderance there is the language barrier.
And yes, I know what hermeneutics is, which is why I was saying about the history of Europe. I forgot Africa <blush> though, and I know I'm forgetting something else major. I need some juice.
I didn't say it was offensive. I was just saying that one can actually say that a verse is taken out of context, and that doesn't mean you are saying a version is wrong.
Please people, can we refrain from using the word "hermeneutics" or at least put a trigger warning sign in the title? I'm having flashbacks to my least favorite grad school class ever. If you want to trigger flashbacks from my least favorite undergrad class, just say, "game theory."
Do you know what hermeneutics is? There are principles and methods to Biblical interpretation. Every Bible you have is based on the Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). They are translated in different ways, based on several different theories.
Word-for-word translations, such as the King James version and the English Standard Version, well, the ESV page says it best Translation Philosophy The goal is to stick as closely as possible to the original language.
Thought-for-thought translations, such as the popular New International Version New International Version (NIV Bible) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com take a different method. They still stick to the original texts, but they look at a whole phrase and then translate it, based on knowledge of Greek and Hebrew syntax, thought, etc.
There are also translations like the Message, which strive to capture the tone and conversational language of the original texts.
So, yes, they say different things. But it's not presumptuous to say that a passage or verse can be interpreted incorrectly. Good Bible study techniques include reading the whole passage, not just taking a verse in isolation. Also a good Bible commentary will help you understand the Background of the time, as well as the Greek and/or Hebrew of that passage, and why it was written in that way. One also has to take into account the whole Bible. It does not contradict itself, so if a verse appears to contradict another verse, then perhaps the reading of it is not correct.
I do not know Hebrew and Greek, but my DH does. He studied both languages while in seminary. I can look up individual words in the greek and Hebrew, which sometimes will help. But I rely on my DH and/or Bible commentaries if I have more in-depth questions.
So, Ann is not saying that her version is right and every other version is wrong. (at least, I think I know her well enough to say she doesn't believe that. There are some who hold that view, and most of them are King James-only followers). She is saying that if you're not reading the whole passage, and understanding what it was written to address, it's possible (and happens a lot) to misunderstand what the verse is saying.
Now, in this particular case? I'm not sure. I didn't read it all fully yet. I can't comment on how they may be taken out of context or not.
Thanks because I was getting ready to post something similar but decided to read the rest of the thread first.
The other things that strikes me is the idea that "true communism" is derived from the NT. The first church did have the ideal of living in community but much of that could be seen because of the culture they lived in at the time.
Also this was seen with in the context of the local church and was never seen as a wide spread political context. I would guess that the original church would not be supportive of it from a political standpoint because it would be impossible for everyone (Christians and non Christians) to be in agreement on how things would be handled.
Ray Vanderlaan has written and teaches extensively on the early church and how different things that the Bible teaches can be seen in light of the culture of the day.
__________________
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Robin wife to one awesome guy for 19 years,
mama to four beautiful boys
Okay, Robin, what I think I am gathering is that there isn't so much biblically prohibiting governments from providing social support that some might consider socialistic, but that the concerns about socialism come from the concern that it would become a worship of the state rather than God. As in the state is the highest authority and has removed God as the highest authority. So, not so much from the policy, but from the concern about power and focus on government vs. God.
Did I get that?
Yes, that is pretty much how I feel.
Here is my personal view that is my Christianity mixed with my belief about government.
I believe that the government should offer social services. I truly think that it would be impossible and very determinal to do away with all services. But I also feel the way they are currently offered and monitored is not successful. Therefore I believe that we need more help given on the local level and that there needs to be more local involvement.
The churches role is to take care of their own. This is what the passages in Acts were talking about. The NT church did not take on the problems of the world, they took care of their own and lived in community together (only inclusive of other believers). This still happens in some congregations. The church also has a responsibility to those on the 'fringe' (widows and orphans are specifically mentioned). I would add to this category those who truly can not help themselves (mentally, emotionally or physically). I think a true modern day example of this would be the Amish.
I will have to go back and look at the references Joy posted to comment any further on them.
Without going for debate, this is sort of how I feel. I do believe that it is first the family (well, I'll go for first the self, then the family), then the church, and then the government, but I do like the idea of having the government as a safety net for those who don't have the safety of the first three options.
See I totally agree with this as long as there is an understanding of personal responsibility. I don't think the family, church or government is responsible to take care of anyone that isn't willing to at least try to take care of themselves. My personal belief is that if someone is trying to better themself so that in the long run they can be self sufficent, we should offer them more help.
wow, i'm not sure how one can be so sure of how biblical interpretation is wrong or right, given a reasonable conversation. remember, pride goeth before a fall.
OK - I'm only going to address the first few because, honestly, I'm not up for this right now. I just had a dear friend die last night after a very fast battle with leukemia (she was diagnosed just 8 weeks ago) and another young woman I know will die in the next few hours, leaving behind her husband one year old daughter (she was diagnosed in the hospital immediately after giving birth to her daughter). Additionally, I have had a massive migraine for 3 days now and I'm just not feeling "right" right now. If I'm curt, I'm sorry - I don't mean to be. NOT a good day here.
Quote:
Christian communists hold the Biblical verses in Acts 2 and 4 as evidence that the first Christians lived in a communist society.
They lived in a communal society amongst themselves - not a communist society. They chose to pool their resources but did not do so with everyone and with the government involvement. There is a big difference.
Quote:
But, in addition, they also cite numerous other Biblical passages which, in their view, support the idea that communism is the most ethical social system and that it is the closest humans can come to living in accordance with God's will. The most often quoted of these Biblical citations are taken from the three synoptic Gospels, which describe the life and ministry of Jesus.
In the Gospel of Luke (1:49-53), Mary delivered the following description of the works of God:
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
I don't see how this supports the government taking all personal property and goods. God Himself has provided for the poor and the rich He has chosen to take things away from them. However, we know through reading Scripture that this was not a universal act because there were still rich and there were still poor. But God had done that in the past to some of the rich and some of the poor and He continues to do so. When Mary said this, there were still poor and still rich and later we see Jesus addressing the poor and rich in His ministry. So this is not saying that God created a communist environment.
Quote:
One of Jesus' most famous remarks regarding the wealthy can be found in Matthew 19:16-24 (the same event is also described in Mark 10:17-25 and Luke 18:18-25, and the metaphor of a camel going through the eye of a needle is common to both Matthew and Luke).
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why do you ask me about what is good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Is this saying that a rich man cannot get into heaven? When we look at the whole of Scripture, we know that is not what is being said. King Solomon was the richest man who had God's heart and King David was quite wealthy too. Even Levi (Matthew) was well-to-do and Jesus never condemned him for it. Jesus was not concerned about anyone's money - He knew the man's heart. His heart was divided and one cannot serve two masters. Jesus got to the heart of the matter - the rich man loved money more than Jesus.
Quote:
However, Jesus Christ goes on to say that what is impossible with men is not impossible with God, implying that the grace of God can save a rich man. See Matthew 19:25-26, Mark 10:26-27 and Luke 18:26-27. For example, Matthew 19:25-26 says:
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
The grace of God can save anyone - not just a rich man. It is not that it is harder for a rich man to be saved but that one who treasures riches has a hard time giving them up. Let's face it - when you have nothing, it's easy to give it up, but the rich man would not turn from his wealth to follow Christ. Christ was not saying at all that one must become poor to be saved, because Scripture just does not support that in it's whole. There were other rich men who were not told to sell all they had to follow Jesus because they were willing to use what they had for Him.
If we look at Zacchaeus, we don't see Jesus telling him to sell everything yet he was a tax collector and very well off.
Quote:
Jesus also described "money changers" (i.e. those engaged in currency exchange) as "thieves" and chased them out of the Temple in Jerusalem. This is described in Matthew 21:12-14, Mark 11:15, and John 2:14-16. The text in Matthew reads as follows:
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
What does this have to do with communism? I don't understand the useage of this passage to support government control of private property and goods. ???????
The rest would go similarly but I'm heading back to bed now.
__________________
Ann
SAHM to 4 beautiful children Lauren ('90), Nicole ('92), Robert ('00) and Joanna ('02) and wife to Bob for 23 years.
Do you know what hermeneutics is? There are principles and methods to Biblical interpretation. Every Bible you have is based on the Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). They are translated in different ways, based on several different theories.
Word-for-word translations, such as the King James version and the English Standard Version, well, the ESV page says it best Translation Philosophy The goal is to stick as closely as possible to the original language.
Thought-for-thought translations, such as the popular New International Version New International Version (NIV Bible) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com take a different method. They still stick to the original texts, but they look at a whole phrase and then translate it, based on knowledge of Greek and Hebrew syntax, thought, etc.
There are also translations like the Message, which strive to capture the tone and conversational language of the original texts.
So, yes, they say different things. But it's not presumptuous to say that a passage or verse can be interpreted incorrectly. Good Bible study techniques include reading the whole passage, not just taking a verse in isolation. Also a good Bible commentary will help you understand the Background of the time, as well as the Greek and/or Hebrew of that passage, and why it was written in that way. One also has to take into account the whole Bible. It does not contradict itself, so if a verse appears to contradict another verse, then perhaps the reading of it is not correct.
I do not know Hebrew and Greek, but my DH does. He studied both languages while in seminary. I can look up individual words in the greek and Hebrew, which sometimes will help. But I rely on my DH and/or Bible commentaries if I have more in-depth questions.
So, Ann is not saying that her version is right and every other version is wrong. (at least, I think I know her well enough to say she doesn't believe that. There are some who hold that view, and most of them are King James-only followers). She is saying that if you're not reading the whole passage, and understanding what it was written to address, it's possible (and happens a lot) to misunderstand what the verse is saying.
Now, in this particular case? I'm not sure. I didn't read it all fully yet. I can't comment on how they may be taken out of context or not.
Yes, thanks. That's what I meant. Context is of utmost importance.
Christian communists hold the Biblical verses in Acts 2 and 4 as evidence that the first Christians lived in a communist society. But, in addition, they also cite numerous other Biblical passages which, in their view, support the idea that communism is the most ethical social system and that it is the closest humans can come to living in accordance with God's will. The most often quoted of these Biblical citations are taken from the three synoptic Gospels, which describe the life and ministry of Jesus.
In the Gospel of Luke (1:49-53), Mary delivered the following description of the works of God:
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
One of Jesus' most famous remarks regarding the wealthy can be found in Matthew 19:16-24 (the same event is also described in Mark 10:17-25 and Luke 18:18-25, and the metaphor of a camel going through the eye of a needle is common to both Matthew and Luke).
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why do you ask me about what is good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
However, Jesus Christ goes on to say that what is impossible with men is not impossible with God, implying that the grace of God can save a rich man. See Matthew 19:25-26, Mark 10:26-27 and Luke 18:26-27. For example, Matthew 19:25-26 says:
25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
Jesus also described "money changers" (i.e. those engaged in currency exchange) as "thieves" and chased them out of the Temple in Jerusalem. This is described in Matthew 21:12-14, Mark 11:15, and John 2:14-16. The text in Matthew reads as follows:
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. 14 And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.
The phrase "love thy neighbor", repeatedly spoken by Jesus, is rather well known. Christian communists point out that Jesus considered this to be the second most important of all moral obligations, after loving God. Thus, they argue, a Christian society should be based first and foremost on these two commandments, and it should uphold them even more than it upholds such things as family values. The relevant Biblical verses are Mark 12:28-31:
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Finally, Jesus gave an account of the Last Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, in which he identifies himself with the hungry, the poor and the sick, and states that good or evil done upon "the least of [God's] brethren" will be counted as good or evil done upon God himself. It is argued that Jesus is saying that nations, rather than individuals, would be judged according to the characteristics of their societies. If that is the case, this could imply that political and economic systems were being heavily critiqued as well:
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in; 36 Naked, and ye clothed me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.
In addition, communist references can be found in Leviticus 25:35-38: "If one [...] becomes poor [...] help him [...] so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God [...] You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God." and Acts 4:32-35, "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had [...] there were no needy persons among them [...] the money [...] was distributed to anyone as he had need." As well as Acts 2:42-47, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching [...] to the breaking of bread [...] everyone was filled with awe [...] all the believers were together and had everything in common [...] they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they [...] ate together with glad and sincere hearts [...] "
Joy I am struggling to see where some of these verses support communism. So if you can offer clarification I would appreciate it.
I have some thoughts on these passages but don't want to post until I undersand how these are seen to support the ideals/ideas of communism/socialism.
uM, you might want to read Bruce Bawer. The social gospel thought that socialism and christianity were very compatible. also, paul tillich, and bishop desmond tutu. And, really, liberation theology is all about that. and, oh, obama's pastor jeremy wright, is about liberation theology. my pastor, too, come to think of it. except he's not as rollicking an orator as wright.
fundamentalism springs from an explicit rejection of the social gospel. as does cslewis' theology- mere christianity- is a polemic against politicized religious practice.
And I hope that Ann knows I'm just interested that she made that statement. I meant no offense to her, just that I found it interesting. I was hoping that she might reply with whta studies she's done on the area and in what time period. The last stuff I was reading involved the whole Nordic-Frankish-Papal war, but the last time I was really sick I had to put it down. My main hinderance there is the language barrier.
I was just saying that one can actually say that a verse is taken out of context, and that doesn't mean you are saying a version is wrong.
That's what I meant. Context is of utmost importance.
Linear Mode
