• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How Would Jesus React

Related (consider it the soundtrack version of this argument):

 
RGacky3 said:
One of the temples primary purpose, was as both a Central bank, and a very very generous welfare system (Ancient Israel was one of the most redistributive communalistic states in the ancient world).

As for teh "You will always have teh poor With you."

Read it

7 For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me.

He was pointing out the hypocrasy, i.e. they should focus on helping the poor themselves ... this was NOT "ohh life isn't fair so screw it." I mean just look at the rest of his ministry, and how the early Church dealt With distribution.
Click to expand...

One also has to take into account that at the time of Jesus' ministry, there was no separation of church and state, religion was politics. There was no difference in how the individual was to conduct themselves and how the state was to conduct itself. In fact, by challenging the Pharisees, he was committing the crime of sedition. The whole zealot movement was one that challenged the prevailing political orders.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
One also has to take into account that at the time of Jesus' ministry, there was no separation of church and state, religion was politics. There was no difference in how the individual was to conduct themselves and how the state was to conduct itself. In fact, by challenging the Pharisees, he was committing the crime of sedition. The whole zealot movement was one that challenged the prevailing political orders.
Click to expand...

That isn't exactly the case, you're right that there was no separation of Church and state, and religion and politics. But there still can be Things that apply on an individual Level and not a state Level.

Challenging the Pharisees was not sedition, Challenging the high priests was sedition (and maybe the Sadducees too), the Pharisees didn't hold real Institutional Power, they were popular among the People but it was the Sadducees and the High priests we're the real Power.

Jesus was NOT part of the zealot movement (which came after he died), and neither was his followers ... if you're talking about Reza Aslans book, I suggest you also read, writers like NT Wright or Richard Bauckham to Balance Reza's.
 
Isn't amazing how much wealth you can make when you sell eternal life?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is the ultimate perversion of that verse:

Here it is, Mark 14:7 -

"You have the poor with you always, and you can be kind to them whenever you wish, but you will not always have me."

By that, he did not mean that "oh well there will always be poor people, what can you do." By saying that "you have the poor with you always", he meant that his followers would always be with the poor. After all, he said this from the home of Simon the Leper. He meant that his followers would always forgo worldly riches and spend their lives ministering to the sick and the poor. It was not some dismissal of the poor at all. It was basically him saying "hey, if you follow me of course you will always be with the poor, but right now we have something more important to deal with".
Click to expand...


RGacky3 said:
One of the temples primary purpose, was as both a Central bank, and a very very generous welfare system (Ancient Israel was one of the most redistributive communalistic states in the ancient world).

As for teh "You will always have teh poor With you."

Read it

7 For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me.

He was pointing out the hypocrasy, i.e. they should focus on helping the poor themselves ... this was NOT "ohh life isn't fair so screw it." I mean just look at the rest of his ministry, and how the early Church dealt With distribution.
Click to expand...

John 12:8
"You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

I think this means exactly what it says, that He was aware that the world will always have those that are less fortunate either thru inability, choice or circumstances. It's merely what it appears to be a realistic statement. You both can read whatever extra you want into it doesn't refute or negate anything I said, or make your analysis correct and relevant.

I don't see a Jesus that's PC, hyper critical, unrealistic, extreme, pretentious, judgmental, falsely modest, goody goody or wearing His righteousness as a robe of condemnation.
 
grip said:
John 12:8
"You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

I think this means exactly what it says, that He was aware that the world will always have those that are less fortunate either thru inability, choice or circumstances. It's merely what it appears to be a realistic statement. You both can read whatever extra you want into it doesn't refute or negate anything I said, or make your analysis correct and relevant.

I don't see a Jesus that's PC, hyper critical, unrealistic, extreme, pretentious, judgmental, falsely modest, goody goody or wearing His righteousness as a robe of condemnation.
Click to expand...

I read context into it, that is all. In context, Jesus and his Apostles ministered to sick, poor, and outcasts of society. When he said that he was in the house of a leper.
His ministry condemned the rich time and time and time again. I think you would be hard pressed to find any group more harshly condemned by Jesus and his Apostles than the rich.

Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

James 5:1-6
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter."

This one is especially harsh in its condemnation, and being it was written by Jesus' brother James, it probably reflects Jesus' views accurately.

Luke 12:33

"Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys."

Luke 18:25

"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

Revelation 3:17

"For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked."

James 1:11

"For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits."

James 5:1

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you."

Luke 6:24

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation."
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I read context into it, that is all. In context, Jesus and his Apostles ministered to sick, poor, and outcasts of society. When he said that he was in the house of a leper.
His ministry condemned the rich time and time and time again. I think you would be hard pressed to find any group more harshly condemned by Jesus and his Apostles than the rich.

Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

James 5:1-6
"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter."

This one is especially harsh in its condemnation, and being it was written by Jesus' brother James, it probably reflects Jesus' views accurately.

Luke 12:33

"Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys."

Luke 18:25

"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

Revelation 3:17

"For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked."

James 1:11

"For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits."

James 5:1

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you."

Luke 6:24

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation."
Click to expand...

I believe you're reading it out of context, only somewhat though it's a large distinction. Jesus and the Apostles were definitely spreading a message against greed, selfishness and hardheartedness. In order to get their point across they often were of a strong opinion against worshiping money and materialism, and trying to spread the message of peace, love, harmony and charity.

I by no means think they hated anyone for having wealth or done well in their efforts to prosper and do well. King David one of the Lord's anointed was the wealthiest man by far in his kingdom. As long as you're being fair, compassionate and even somewhat generous when you can afford it and it's appreciated, I believe your heart is right.

Nothing wrong with being rich if you didn't attain it unfairly at the cost of others. And don't use your wealth, privilege and the power and leverage it provides to abuse others and deny them opportunity.
 
Dragonfly said:
If Jesus were to return to Earth in 2014, what do you think his reaction would be to this kind of extravagance and opulence???

TheVaticanMuseumsInterior_FB.jpg


06-places-lifetime-traveler-vatican_32769_990x742.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't think Jesus would have anything to say about it. For if you recall it was G-d who gave the instructions to build His temple down to the ornate garments the priests were to wear. Much of it had to do with gold gilding, solid gold lampstands, intricate carvings in the finest wood etc. If G-d wanted it that way, why would Jesus be offended with a church doing the same? Is not what is on the walls, the floors and ceilings all depicting events in Scripture that glorify G-d?
 
grip said:
Nothing wrong with being rich if you didn't attain it unfairly at the cost of others. And don't use your wealth, privilege and the power and leverage it provides to abuse others and deny them opportunity.
Click to expand...

Nobody says it's wrong for people to be rich.
The question is should the church be rich? So rich as to be rather extreme in their opulence.
 
grip said:
I believe you're reading it out of context, only somewhat though it's a large distinction. Jesus and the Apostles were definitely spreading a message against greed, selfishness and hardheartedness. In order to get their point across they often were of a strong opinion against worshiping money and materialism, and trying to spread the message of peace, love, harmony and charity.

I by no means think they hated anyone for having wealth or done well in their efforts to prosper and do well. King David one of the Lord's anointed was the wealthiest man by far in his kingdom. As long as you're being fair, compassionate and even somewhat generous when you can afford it and it's appreciated, I believe your heart is right.

Nothing wrong with being rich if you didn't attain it unfairly at the cost of others. And don't use your wealth, privilege and the power and leverage it provides to abuse others and deny them opportunity.
Click to expand...

I think that is largely a modern view, almost property gospel in its notions. The Gospels and the writings of the Apostles could not be more clear in how they viewed the rich and the pursuit of wealth. It is not like they were saying "its ok if you are rich so long as you are generous". In fact, they point out how generosity is easy for the rich. As to the Old Testament, can you imagine any Jewish scribe condemning rich kings in their writings? I doubt that would have gone very well for them.

I think it comes down to where someone is coming from. I am no longer religious, and am Agnostic. So I see the accounts in Gospels and Epistles as the views of the people that wrote them, not something that is a literal word of God and thus must never contradicts anything that came before it. If someone believes it to be the Word of God, then they have to fully harmonize with the Old Testament and thus interpret it in a way that seemingly eliminates the contradictions.
 
Dragonfly said:
Nobody says it's wrong for people to be rich.
The question is should the church be rich? So rich as to be rather extreme in their opulence.
Click to expand...

I often thought the Catholic Church's and Vatican take it to the extremes with priceless artifacts, buildings, holdings and literally wealth beyond comprehension. Many Christian Mega Churches expect or require tithes as high as 10% or more of your salary. I know they need a certain amount to actually keep the church services, activities, charities, minister & staff salaries and buildings operating but many do seem to prosper beyond running expenses.

I guess if people want to give that much and in that way it's their choice but I'm not personally a fan of it.


SouthernDemocrat said:
I think that is largely a modern view, almost property gospel in its notions. The Gospels and the writings of the Apostles could not be more clear in how they viewed the rich and the pursuit of wealth. It is not like they were saying "its ok if you are rich so long as you are generous". In fact, they point out how generosity is easy for the rich. As to the Old Testament, can you imagine any Jewish scribe condemning rich kings in their writings? I doubt that would have gone very well for them.

I think it comes down to where someone is coming from. I am no longer religious, and am Agnostic. So I see the accounts in Gospels and Epistles as the views of the people that wrote them, not something that is a literal word of God and thus must never contradicts anything that came before it. If someone believes it to be the Word of God, then they have to fully harmonize with the Old Testament and thus interpret it in a way that seemingly eliminates the contradictions.
Click to expand...


I've never stayed involved in a religious organization partially for the money reason, partially because of the literal translation of the bible and the strict belief that it's all infallible. But I believe it's better than gangs, drugs, alcohol and many other non productive activities and groups and they do a lot of positive things. I also approve of what religious organizations like The Salvation Army do with helping the needy, though some charities spend way too much on administration.

Jesus wouldn't probably choose to live in abject poverty though I believe while on earth He may exist in more modest settings. Probably middle class. He didn't actually perform labor or work for wages after He started His ministry and relied on donations and charity for sustenance. Lord knows what some would call Him now days for that? After the fishes and loaves feeding the multitudes and turning water into wine, He might of did that to feed Himself and the apostles when necessary. I doubt the NT covers all He did and said.
 
Dragonfly said:
Nobody says it's wrong for people to be rich.
The question is should the church be rich? So rich as to be rather extreme in their opulence.
Click to expand...
The opulence in a church is shared with everyone and is there for the greater glory of God, not to display wealth for the sake of wealth. The same was true of the perfumed oil in Simon the Leaper's house. Both are there to celebrate our blessings, not lord it over those with less. Nothing wrong with that at all, as Jesus' own words have shown us.
 
grip said:
John 12:8
"You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."

I think this means exactly what it says, that He was aware that the world will always have those that are less fortunate either thru inability, choice or circumstances. It's merely what it appears to be a realistic statement. You both can read whatever extra you want into it doesn't refute or negate anything I said, or make your analysis correct and relevant.

I don't see a Jesus that's PC, hyper critical, unrealistic, extreme, pretentious, judgmental, falsely modest, goody goody or wearing His righteousness as a robe of condemnation.
Click to expand...

No he means exactly what he says IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW HE SAYS IT ... remember, what the context was.

4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” 6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) 7 Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it[c] so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. 8 You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

Again ... what I said he was pointing out his hypocrasy ... not making a socio-political statement that helping the poor is pointless (which would og against all his other teachings). He was saying it to Judas, who didn't bare about the poor, and stole from the common fund used to help the poor, so he's saying "you always have the poor With you", YOU help the poor, don't judge others who are honoring me.

This is what biblical exegesis is all about, Reading texts in context and in conjunction With the rest of scripture.
 
RGacky3 said:
No he means exactly what he says IN THE CONTEXT OF HOW HE SAYS IT ... remember, what the context was.

4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” 6 (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.) 7 Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it[c] so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. 8 You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

Again ... what I said he was pointing out his hypocrasy ... not making a socio-political statement that helping the poor is pointless (which would og against all his other teachings). He was saying it to Judas, who didn't bare about the poor, and stole from the common fund used to help the poor, so he's saying "you always have the poor With you", YOU help the poor, don't judge others who are honoring me.

This is what biblical exegesis is all about, Reading texts in context and in conjunction With the rest of scripture.
Click to expand...


I have no clue to what your point is? I didn't take anything out of context.

The OP alludes to the opulence of certain churches as being sinful or wrong in the eyes of Jesus. And many here have stated from what's known about His teachings that He might not have had any direct condemnation of the money used to build excessively nice temples. It would probably depend on whether the churches were built that way to honor God or their builders.

He was furious at the money changers in the temple because of their intentions. If they were there giving away money to the poor He might have blessed them.
 
Dragonfly said:
If Jesus were to return to Earth in 2014, what do you think his reaction would be to this kind of extravagance and opulence???

TheVaticanMuseumsInterior_FB.jpg


06-places-lifetime-traveler-vatican_32769_990x742.jpg
Click to expand...

He didn't seem to have a problem with the extravagant temple which existed in Jerusalem during his time on earth. :shrug:
 
Jesus didn't seem offended by the extravagant 2nd Temple, which had gold and silver artifacts, etc.
 
grip said:
I have no clue to what your point is? I didn't take anything out of context.

The OP alludes to the opulence of certain churches as being sinful or wrong in the eyes of Jesus. And many here have stated from what's known about His teachings that He might not have had any direct condemnation of the money used to build excessively nice temples. It would probably depend on whether the churches were built that way to honor God or their builders.

He was furious at the money changers in the temple because of their intentions. If they were there giving away money to the poor He might have blessed them.
Click to expand...

My point is that Jesus isn't saying "there are always going to be poor People so forget social justice" .... the point was pointing out the hypocrasy of Judas who didn't care about the poor ....

He was furious at the Money changers because they we're using the temple as a Place for profit, and commiting a form of usury (which is why he called them theives).

But don't use Jesus' quotes out of context and pretend he's saying something he isn't. You did take it out of context, you claimed he was saying something that he wasn't.
 
RGacky3 said:
My point is that Jesus isn't saying "there are always going to be poor People so forget social justice" .... the point was pointing out the hypocrasy of Judas who didn't care about the poor ....

He was furious at the Money changers because they we're using the temple as a Place for profit, and commiting a form of usury (which is why he called them theives).

But don't use Jesus' quotes out of context and pretend he's saying something he isn't. You did take it out of context, you claimed he was saying something that he wasn't.
Click to expand...

Your claim that the saying isn't valid or out of context when not associated with the rest of the story is false. Why in many cases this can be true it's not true in this particular sense. Though he was aware of Judas being a hypocrite about the money used for the perfume and said the quote to correct him, it's still in proper context to state that "He was aware of the poor".

You are making a common error that many like to do by adding commentary or implied meaning that was not there, by saying "so forget social justice". I neither said that or even remotely meant it.


Here's the quote of reference once again...

If you're trying to say would Jesus be displeased if the money used on these buildings could've directly been used to feed the poor and destitute, then maybe. But even He said "For ye have the poor with you always". He wasn't unrealistic about how wealth and poverty are distributed and that all things are not equal.
Click to expand...

The reference is in the context of we'll never solve poverty completely because some people will never manage their resources properly, whether from mental illness, ignorance or substance abuse. It was true then and is true now. Who do you think is the author of "free will" and who do you think is more aware of it's ramifications than the One who gave it? If He didn't mean "you'll have the poor always" what did He mean?
 
Logicman said:
Jesus didn't seem offended by the extravagant 2nd Temple, which had gold and silver artifacts, etc.
Click to expand...

But he was offended by the Usury going on there.
 
Dragonfly said:
If Jesus were to return to Earth in 2014, what do you think his reaction would be to this kind of extravagance and opulence???
Click to expand...
I think throwing the moneychangers out of the Temple in Jerusalem gives us a good template for what his reaction would likely be.
 
grip said:
Your claim that the saying isn't valid or out of context when not associated with the rest of the story is false. Why in many cases this can be true it's not true in this particular sense. Though he was aware of Judas being a hypocrite about the money used for the perfume and said the quote to correct him, it's still in proper context to state that "He was aware of the poor".

You are making a common error that many like to do by adding commentary or implied meaning that was not there, by saying "so forget social justice". I neither said that or even remotely meant it.

Here's the quote of reference once again...

The reference is in the context of we'll never solve poverty completely because some people will never manage their resources properly, whether from mental illness, ignorance or substance abuse. It was true then and is true now. Who do you think is the author of "free will" and who do you think is more aware of it's ramifications than the One who gave it? If He didn't mean "you'll have the poor always" what did He mean?
Click to expand...

And earlier you said

grip said:
If you're trying to say would Jesus be displeased if the money used on these buildings could've directly been used to feed the poor and destitute, then maybe. But even He said "For ye have the poor with you always". He wasn't unrealistic about how wealth and poverty are distributed and that all things are not equal.
Click to expand...

Now it's not THAT difficult to take from that the implication that Jesus didn't care about social injustice.

But my point is that when you see the context what you're saying that Jesus' meant isn't the case AT ALL.

That's the context that YOU we're talking in, but not the context that Jesus was talking in.

I explained what Jesus was saying, and it's Clear.

A woman was pouring oil on Jesus, Judas criticized her pretending to care for the poor, while actually he was taking Money from the Public fund meant for the poor, Jesus spoke directly TO HIM saying you will always have the poor With you ... KNOWING that his pretend concern for the poor was fake, and that he was just being judgemental.

He was NOT telling him "oh Things are not Equal, deal With it," as it would make no sense in the context.
 
RGacky3 said:
And earlier you said



Now it's not THAT difficult to take from that the implication that Jesus didn't care about social injustice.

But my point is that when you see the context what you're saying that Jesus' meant isn't the case AT ALL.

That's the context that YOU we're talking in, but not the context that Jesus was talking in.

I explained what Jesus was saying, and it's Clear.

A woman was pouring oil on Jesus, Judas criticized her pretending to care for the poor, while actually he was taking Money from the Public fund meant for the poor, Jesus spoke directly TO HIM saying you will always have the poor With you ... KNOWING that his pretend concern for the poor was fake, and that he was just being judgemental.

He was NOT telling him "oh Things are not Equal, deal With it," as it would make no sense in the context.
Click to expand...

First of all the earlier part I said was included in that last quote, look again.

And you still haven't made a case where I implied Jesus didn't care about social justice as much as he was aware of people being poor. Why does poverty imply "social injustice" if someone is the direct cause of their own condition thru a bad attitude or choice? That doesn't compute.

Your explanation for what Jesus meant is also a twisting out of context. So what if He directly said the quote "you'll always have the poor with you" to Judas, how does that make the comment any less true when extracted? Either he meant what He said in any context or the statement was true. It certainly wasn't symbolic or a parable.

If you're going to argue the point at least make some sense?
 
grip said:
First of all the earlier part I said was included in that last quote, look again.

And you still haven't made a case where I implied Jesus didn't care about social justice as much as he was aware of people being poor. Why does poverty imply "social injustice" if someone is the direct cause of their own condition thru a bad attitude or choice? That doesn't compute.

Your explanation for what Jesus meant is also a twisting out of context. So what if He directly said the quote "you'll always have the poor with you" to Judas, how does that make the comment any less true when extracted? Either he meant what He said in any context or the statement was true. It certainly wasn't symbolic or a parable.

If you're going to argue the point at least make some sense?
Click to expand...

Oh he wasn't JUST aware of it, he gave reasons, the Money lenders were "theives" James his Brother said it was the Rich that oppress the poor, Jesus never implied that the poor caused their own poverty, which is why he Condemned the Rich.

No it isn't twisting it out of context because the epistle of John GIVES THE CONTEXT!!!! Which is that Judas was stealing from the common fund for the poor and Jesus knew it .... that's the context ... unless of coarse you think John is just making it up.
 
RGacky3 said:
Oh he wasn't JUST aware of it, he gave reasons, the Money lenders were "theives" James his Brother said it was the Rich that oppress the poor, Jesus never implied that the poor caused their own poverty, which is why he Condemned the Rich.

No it isn't twisting it out of context because the epistle of John GIVES THE CONTEXT!!!! Which is that Judas was stealing from the common fund for the poor and Jesus knew it .... that's the context ... unless of coarse you think John is just making it up.
Click to expand...

That's an extreme reach at best. Jesus was so unrealistic, that He believed that the poor only existed, because rich people wouldn't share? In that case everybody would be middle class, with no rich or poor, which in a world of free will.. ain't happening.
 
grip said:
That's an extreme reach at best. Jesus was so unrealistic, that He believed that the poor only existed, because rich people wouldn't share? In that case everybody would be middle class, with no rich or poor, which in a world of free will.. ain't happening.
Click to expand...

No it IS'NT at Extreme Reach .... IT'S IN THE TEXT.

What did Jesus say to the Money changers in the temple? He called them Robbers? Why? Because Usary was a sin.

James 5:
4 Listen! The wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. 5 You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

James 2:
6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?

But the fact about the vrs in John is a fact FROM THE TEXT .... the reason Jesus said "You will always have the poor With you" was because Judas was being dishonest in his concern since he was stealing from the common fund that was for the poor. That isn't an interpretation, it's in the text itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom