SAMURFER SAID:
“Have you actually read the passage?”
No, never read it. You see, whenever I reach the bottom of Mt 25:34, I skip vv35-40 to get straight to the fun stuff in v41–then skip vv42-45 to collect the bonus verse in 46.
“It refers to all people, to strangers even. Persecuted Christians would be included, but so would persecuted Buddhists or Atheists Yours is the arguement of a moral cretin; if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...”
Well, that’s disappointing. Here I jockeyed for a higher ranking in the Hall of Infamy, yet all I’ve gotten for my diligent iniquity is moral cretinism. Is there something I can still do to burnish my moral turpitude? Maybe feed kittens to my pet boa constrictor?
As for who it denotes, permit me to quote one of my cretinous cohorts:
“But in the context of Jesus’ teachings, especially in the context of Matthew (as opposed to Luke), this parable probably addresses not serving the poor on the whole but receiving the gospel’s messengers. Elsewhere in Matthew, disciples are Jesus’ brothers’ (12:50; 28:10; cf. also the ‘least’–5:19; 11:11; 18:3-6,10-14). Likewise, one unwittingly treats Jesus as one treats his representatives (10:40-42), who should be received with hospitality, food, and drink (10:8-13,42). Imprisonment could refer to detention until trial before magistrates (10:18-19), and sickness to physical conditions stirred by the hardship of the mission…The king thus judges the nations based on how they have responded to the gospel of the kingdom already preached to them before the time of his kingdom (24:14; 28:19-2). True messengers of the gospel will successfully evangelize the world only if they can also embrace poverty and suffering for Christ’s name (cf. Matthey 1981). That the ‘siblings’ are here ‘disciples’ is the majority view in church history and among contemporary New Testament scholars, although those who hold ‘siblings’ to be disciples divide sharply over whether they are specifically missionaries or poor fellow disciples in general,” C. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans 1999), 605-6; cf. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans 2007), 957-58.
You are awesome Steve.
ReplyDeleteNot trying to be anonymous. That was me.
ReplyDelete"No, never read it. You see, whenever I reach the bottom of Mt 25:34, I skip vv35-40 to get straight to the fun stuff in v41–then skip vv42-45 to collect the bonus verse in 46."
ReplyDeleteThe sad thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if your sarcasm reflected reality.
Citing a cretinous authority, indeed, does your own lack of moral compass any good. You might read what Jesus said about who counts as one's neighbors (Hint: The Good Samaritan story), rather than relying on shaky eisegesis.
Uh, since Steven doesn't advocate doing nothing for the poor, what's the point of this discussion?
ReplyDeleteAnd the Good Samaritan is in Luke, further from the context of the passage under discussion than the Matthean context Keener cites.
Sorry, meant to write "Steve"
ReplyDeleteSAMURFER SAID:
ReplyDelete"Citing a cretinous authority, indeed, does your own lack of moral compass any good."
I didn't cite Keener as an "authority." Rather, I cited his exegetical argument. Pity you don't know the difference.
"You might read what Jesus said about who counts as one's neighbors (Hint: The Good Samaritan story)..."
The question at issue isn't what the Bible teaches about charity in general, but what your specific prooftext means in the context. Pity you don't know the difference.
"...rather than relying on shaky eisegesis."
You're long on attitude and short on argument.
"You're long on attitude and short on argument."
ReplyDeletePot, kettle. The irony, it kills.
SAMURFER SAID:
ReplyDelete"Pot, kettle. The irony, it kills."
I presented an argument from Keener. You have yet to present anything resembling a counterargument. You're both pot and kettle in one.
What I meant was that you accusing others of having attitude problems is rather amusing.
ReplyDeleteKeener doesn't have an argument; the context is clearly a universal call to charity. Attempts to limit it to the "right" people are frankly bizarre, and dare I say rather goat-like.
The problem in the earlier post had nothing to do with exegesis, but with the negative attitude to a call to Christ-like service to others. I do not accuse anyone here of not serving others as Christ commanded, but perhaps it would be more profitable to talk about that rather than sexualizing third parties for sophomoric giggles. It doesn't matter if the object of such childish humor is Catholic nuns or any other human being, it is the humor itself, "That which goes forth out of the man, that defiles the man"
As St. Paul said, "For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things." (Phillipians 4:8)
SAMURFER SAID:
ReplyDelete“Keener doesn't have an argument.”
You assert that he doesn’t have an argument.
“The context is clearly a universal call to charity.”
You assert that the context is clearly a universal call to charity.
“Attempts to limit it to the ‘right’ people are frankly bizarre, and dare I say rather goat-like.”
You assert that attempts to limit it to the "right" people are frankly bizarre, and rather goat-like.
Thanks for demonstrating that you’re interpretation is exegetically indefensible.
“The problem in the earlier post had nothing to do with exegesis, but with the negative attitude to a call to Christ-like service to others.”
Christ was not a monk or a nun. And he didn’t whip himself with a cat o' nine tails to draw closer to God.
“But perhaps it would be more profitable to talk about that rather than sexualizing third parties for sophomoric giggles.”
Actually, it’s commenters like you who respond with sophomoric giggles.
“It doesn't matter if the object of such childish humor is Catholic nuns or any other human being, it is the humor itself.”
Satire is a perfectly legitimate literary genre, e.g. Swift, Erasmus.
Again, Keener is no more than assertions himself, so at least I'm in good company, eh?
ReplyDelete"Christ was not a monk or a nun. And he didn’t whip himself with a cat o' nine tails to draw closer to God."
He just starved himself for forty days. Totally different, yeah.
If you think any decent human beings were giggling at that sophomoric attempt at satire, you are mistaken. Retching at it, more like. It was not satire, it was sick. How would you respond if someone talked about your mother that way?
samurfer said...
ReplyDelete"Again, Keener is no more than assertions himself, so at least I'm in good company, eh?"
To the contrary, he argued for his interpretation on the basis of specific, intertextual parallels.
But given you're chronic inability to mount an argument for your own position, it doesn't surprise me that you don't know what an argument is when you see one. That would help explain your own intellectual failure.
"He just starved himself for forty days. Totally different, yeah."
Yes, totally different since, in context, it recapitulates the temptation of Israel in the wilderness. But that would require you to properly exegete a text.
samurfer said...
Again, Keener is no more than assertions himself, so at least I'm in good company, eh?
"Christ was not a monk or a nun. And he didn’t whip himself with a cat o' nine tails to draw closer to God."
He just starved himself for forty days. Totally different, yeah.
"How would you respond if someone talked about your mother that way?"
The fact that you think a nun (any nun?) is equivalent to your mother says a lot about the adolescent identity confusion of Catholics.
"But given you're chronic inability to mount an argument for your own position, it doesn't surprise me that you don't know what an argument is when you see one. That would help explain your own intellectual failure."
ReplyDeleteActually, it has more to do with not engaging you on your own terms, but thanks anyway.
"The fact that you think a nun (any nun?) is equivalent to your mother says a lot about the adolescent identity confusion of Catholics."
How about sister, wife or daughter? Female neighbor, church organist, dentist? Would it be okay for people to make lewd jokes about them? You do realize that nuns are actual human beings, whom Christ died for, and not mental constructs, don't you? Any woman is equivalent to my mother or my sister, and so is any man. They are all God's creations, worthy of love and respect.
"Yes, totally different since, in context, it recapitulates the temptation of Israel in the wilderness. But that would require you to properly exegete a text."
Recapitulates by abusing his body in a rather extreme manner. This interpretation (which is correct for part of the meaning of the passage) is not far off from the actual Catholic theology of penitential participation in the sufferings of Christ, actually.
SAMURFER SAID:
ReplyDelete“You do realize that nuns are actual human beings, whom Christ died for, and not mental constructs, don't you?”
i) My satire was, in fact, a construct. A fictitious construct. Not about real people. You keep demonstrating your adolescent identity confusion.
ii) And at this point you’re prevaricating. For you, this is not about nuns as individuals or nuns as generic women.
Rather, this is about that they represent–their vocation. What you label “a call to Christ-like service to others.”
If you were actually dealing with individuals, you’d be capable of distinguishing virtuous individuals from vicious individuals (e.g. Nazareth House).
“Any woman is equivalent to my mother or my sister, and so is any man.”
i) Another example of your adolescent identity confusion. You’re like a celebrity stalker who can’t distinguish the person from the role.
ii) Moreover, a monk or nun or priest is not equivalent to a layman in Catholic theology. Nuns are “married to Christ.”
“They are all God's creations, worthy of love and respect.”
The nuns of Nazareth House who abused the orphans in their care are hardly “worthy” of love and respect.
“This interpretation (which is correct for part of the meaning of the passage) is not far off from the actual Catholic theology of penitential participation in the sufferings of Christ, actually.”
No, you’ve got in backwards. In Mt 4, Jesus recapitulates the experience of others–they don’t recapitulate the experience of Jesus.
As I indicated in a previous post, Catholics like you react the same way pagan idolaters reacted when Christian missionaries like Paul "disrespected" Artemis.
ReplyDelete"Would it be okay for people to make lewd jokes about them?"
ReplyDeleteI reject your characterization of satire, but in any case what is truly lewd is the masochistic character of Catholic piety in some of its venerable expressions.