MS2 wrote:If we go with a historical-type interpretation, Jesus was predicting that the oppressed among the Jews would soon have their situation dramatically improved when Yahweh acted to throw out the Romans and bring in his own kingdom (ie the kingdom of God). This is reflected in Luke's version: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is [ie will be] the kingdom of God.' Matthew though, when writing his version, realised that the poor were still suffering and that the kingdom had not actually come, at least in a physical sense, eg with the overthrow of the Romans. So Matthew 'saves the day' by spiritualising the saying: and it becomes the spiritually poor who will be blessed, and the kingdom itself is 'of heaven', rather than one that will come about 'on earth'.

I think Luke's version is just down to bad reporting - the person who was there didn't understand the 'in spirit' bit or didn't hear it properly so it was just left as 'Blessed are the poor...' hence the NEB version I quoted above.

John Platko wrote:Well if you want to dismiss testimonial evidence ...

Yes, yes I do want to dismiss. Testimonial evidence with nothing else to back it up has no value.

John Platko wrote: And by all means you're welcome to do the experiment yourself, if you can that is. Get yourself in a state of "ego death" or "poor in spirit" and report back and tell us what happened - if you can.
But I don't recommend it.

Did it last night. I was fine.

John Platko wrote:
Yes, I've seen some programs on TV about it....blah blah blah blah

You realise all the stuff about Sherpa's is irrelevant right?
If you're not fit, you're not getting up that mountain. That the Sherpas have to be fitter, has no bearing on that.

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:Well if you want to dismiss testimonial evidence ...

Yes, yes I do want to dismiss. Testimonial evidence with nothing else to back it up has no value.

John Platko wrote: And by all means you're welcome to do the experiment yourself, if you can that is. Get yourself in a state of "ego death" or "poor in spirit" and report back and tell us what happened - if you can.
But I don't recommend it.

Did it last night. I was fine.

Do you expect us to accept your testimonial evidence with nothing else to back it up?

John Platko wrote:
Yes, I've seen some programs on TV about it....blah blah blah blah

You realise all the stuff about Sherpa's is irrelevant right?
If you're not fit, you're not getting up that mountain. That the Sherpas have to be fitter, has no bearing on that.

Well if I were to seek to climb Mt Everest it would be for the overall journey of the doing of it. And a big part of that journey would be getting fit enough to risk the climb. So exercise, mental and physical, would be the worthwhile goal. Bragging rights - not so much.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit..."

What exactly is meant by "poor in spirit"?

Blessed are those with little or no faith, I suppose. Jesus talked some bollocks, along with the ''I bring a sword" nonsense.

What about the cheesemakers, big nose?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

John Platko wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

John Platko wrote:Well if you want to dismiss testimonial evidence ...

Yes, yes I do want to dismiss. Testimonial evidence with nothing else to back it up has no value.

John Platko wrote: And by all means you're welcome to do the experiment yourself, if you can that is. Get yourself in a state of "ego death" or "poor in spirit" and report back and tell us what happened - if you can.
But I don't recommend it.

Did it last night. I was fine.

Do you expect us to accept your testimonial evidence with nothing else to back it up?

I see you're finally learning. Well done!

Alan B wrote:

MS2 wrote:If we go with a historical-type interpretation, Jesus was predicting that the oppressed among the Jews would soon have their situation dramatically improved when Yahweh acted to throw out the Romans and bring in his own kingdom (ie the kingdom of God). This is reflected in Luke's version: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is [ie will be] the kingdom of God.' Matthew though, when writing his version, realised that the poor were still suffering and that the kingdom had not actually come, at least in a physical sense, eg with the overthrow of the Romans. So Matthew 'saves the day' by spiritualising the saying: and it becomes the spiritually poor who will be blessed, and the kingdom itself is 'of heaven', rather than one that will come about 'on earth'.

I think Luke's version is just down to bad reporting - the person who was there didn't understand the 'in spirit' bit or didn't hear it properly so it was just left as 'Blessed are the poor...' hence the NEB version I quoted above.

That is possible. But mishearing as an explanation becomes less likely when you look at the rest of Luke's version of the beatitudes in comparison to Matthew's. See how Luke has the hungry being satisfied, while Matthew 'spiritualises' them into those who 'hunger for righteousnes'? And those who are hated in Luke's version become those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake in Mat. The multiple changes make deliberate alteration more likely than simple mishearing. (Transmission of the stories over the years before the gospels were written also needs to be considered, along with many other factors, but that's too much to go into here.)

MS2 wrote:

Alan B wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:Blessed are they that empty themselves of evil thoughts and deeds and forfeit the desires of the world for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

That gels with the way I'm thinking.
Nothing to do with 'material poverty'.
The Bibles I have are The New English Bible (NEB) and the later version with minor corrections, The Revised English Bible (REB). (I also have the KJV - everyone has one of those, except Cali, of course )

In the REB the first Beatitude: "Blessed are the poor in spirit the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs" remains similar to most other version of the Bible, However, in Luke 6:20 where many versions are similar to the KJV: "Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the Kingdom of God" - with accent on 'poor' - the REB states:
"Blessed are you who are in need, the Kingdom of God is yours". The REB appears to have changed the context to differentiate between 'poor in spirit' and 'poor in material wealth'. Hence the question.
What I have also just noticed are the two phrases 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Kingdom of God'. Are they the same? That may be a naive question to some 'dyed in the wool' theists, but the difference is there.

Also note: the NEB "...was a new translation from the ancient texts..." and the REB had the RCC on its advisory council.

If we go with a historical-type interpretation, Jesus was predicting that the oppressed among the Jews would soon have their situation dramatically improved when Yahweh acted to throw out the Romans and bring in his own kingdom (ie the kingdom of God). This is reflected in Luke's version: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is [ie will be] the kingdom of God.' Matthew though, when writing his version, realised that the poor were still suffering and that the kingdom had not actually come, at least in a physical sense, eg with the overthrow of the Romans. So Matthew 'saves the day' by spiritualising the saying: and it becomes the spiritually poor who will be blessed, and the kingdom itself is 'of heaven', rather than one that will come about 'on earth'.

If we go with a historical-type interpretation, the Gospel narratives about Jesus are not history as they're not substantiated by other sources.

The gospels are narratives: layered, edited, stories; to sell a theology. Gospel-truth' is an oxymoron.

RealityRules wrote:

MS2 wrote:

Alan B wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:Blessed are they that empty themselves of evil thoughts and deeds and forfeit the desires of the world for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

That gels with the way I'm thinking.
Nothing to do with 'material poverty'.
The Bibles I have are The New English Bible (NEB) and the later version with minor corrections, The Revised English Bible (REB). (I also have the KJV - everyone has one of those, except Cali, of course )

In the REB the first Beatitude: "Blessed are the poor in spirit the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs" remains similar to most other version of the Bible, However, in Luke 6:20 where many versions are similar to the KJV: "Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the Kingdom of God" - with accent on 'poor' - the REB states:
"Blessed are you who are in need, the Kingdom of God is yours". The REB appears to have changed the context to differentiate between 'poor in spirit' and 'poor in material wealth'. Hence the question.
What I have also just noticed are the two phrases 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Kingdom of God'. Are they the same? That may be a naive question to some 'dyed in the wool' theists, but the difference is there.

Also note: the NEB "...was a new translation from the ancient texts..." and the REB had the RCC on its advisory council.

If we go with a historical-type interpretation, Jesus was predicting that the oppressed among the Jews would soon have their situation dramatically improved when Yahweh acted to throw out the Romans and bring in his own kingdom (ie the kingdom of God). This is reflected in Luke's version: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is [ie will be] the kingdom of God.' Matthew though, when writing his version, realised that the poor were still suffering and that the kingdom had not actually come, at least in a physical sense, eg with the overthrow of the Romans. So Matthew 'saves the day' by spiritualising the saying: and it becomes the spiritually poor who will be blessed, and the kingdom itself is 'of heaven', rather than one that will come about 'on earth'.

If we go with a historical-type interpretation, the Gospel narratives about Jesus are not history as they're not substantiated by other sources.

The gospels are narratives: layered, edited, stories; to sell a theology. Gospel-truth' is an oxymoron.

Are you suggesting I think there is 'gospel-truth'?

MS2 wrote:
Are you suggesting I think there is 'gospel-truth'?

It was a general comment, though I did wonder at you saying ...

If we go with a historical-type interpretation ...

RealityRules wrote:

MS2 wrote:
Are you suggesting I think there is 'gospel-truth'?

It was a general comment, though I did wonder at you saying ...

If we go with a historical-type interpretation ...

That explains a lot

There are these words, and phrases, that are used in the Bible "poor in spirit" and "righteousness" being two of them.

What is "poor in spirit" supposed to mean? Depressed? Seeking God? Worried about whether they're going to get into the afterlife? Do Christians actually go about thinking about the afterlife, or are they like one website I read yesterday "part-time atheists" while they go about their daily routine, only becoming spiritual at night when they can't sleep and the fear of death begins to gnaw at their over-tired brains.

We dutifully say our prayers in the morning, but then go about the day hardly giving God a thought, making decisions and engaging the day as if we had left him at home. At the end of a whirlwind day, we fall exhausted into bed, and, if we are particularly devout, we offer up another prayer. But the picture at the center of this prayer-framed life is often blank...
If this isn't a form of atheism, even of hating God, I don't know what is. No wonder Jesus uses stark language to describe faith: We either hate Jesus (John 15:23-24) or we hate ourselves (John 12:25). That's what it comes down to. And we often know who "our first hate" is.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/aprilweb-only/113-41.0.html

And "righteous" what the hell does that mean? In whose opinion is someone "righteous?"

I can't find any coherent definition of what "righteousness" is. Everything I do find is wrapped up in smug nonsense. I can't see it as "moral goodness" which is what the Oxford dictionary calls it. To me morality is whatever you want it to be, apart from the natural laws of not killing other people, or animals, or not taking stuff that doesn't belong to you and so on. Apparently "righteousness" is more than that. I don't know I'm probably too cynical to understand someone telling me what to think.

Agrippina wrote:There are these words, and phrases, that are used in the Bible "poor in spirit" and "righteousness" being two of them.

What is "poor in spirit" supposed to mean? Depressed? Seeking God? Worried about whether they're going to get into the afterlife? Do Christians actually go about thinking about the afterlife, or are they like one website I read yesterday "part-time atheists" while they go about their daily routine, only becoming spiritual at night when they can't sleep and the fear of death begins to gnaw at their over-tired brains.

We dutifully say our prayers in the morning, but then go about the day hardly giving God a thought, making decisions and engaging the day as if we had left him at home. At the end of a whirlwind day, we fall exhausted into bed, and, if we are particularly devout, we offer up another prayer. But the picture at the center of this prayer-framed life is often blank...
If this isn't a form of atheism, even of hating God, I don't know what is. No wonder Jesus uses stark language to describe faith: We either hate Jesus (John 15:23-24) or we hate ourselves (John 12:25). That's what it comes down to. And we often know who "our first hate" is.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/aprilweb-only/113-41.0.html

And "righteous" what the hell does that mean? In whose opinion is someone "righteous?"

I can't find any coherent definition of what "righteousness" is. Everything I do find is wrapped up in smug nonsense. I can't see it as "moral goodness" which is what the Oxford dictionary calls it. To me morality is whatever you want it to be, apart from the natural laws of not killing other people, or animals, or not taking stuff that doesn't belong to you and so on. Apparently "righteousness" is more than that. I don't know I'm probably too cynical to understand someone telling me what to think.

I can't find any coherent definition of what "righteousness" is. Everything I do find is wrapped up in smug nonsense. I can't see it as "moral goodness" which is what the Oxford dictionary calls it. To me morality is whatever you want it to be, apart from the natural laws of not killing other people, or animals, or not taking stuff that doesn't belong to you and so on.

Ahhhh look at that, another word an atheist doesn't seem to like the definition of. Perhaps it needs to go on the list I'm keeping of redefined words ...

I recommend you just use the standard definitions that we have for words, Agrippina, it's an important aspect of language.

And the problem with the definition of 'righteous' goes completely over John's head.

Sendraks wrote:And the problem with the definition of 'righteous' goes completely over John's head.

I thought it all did.

Sendraks wrote:And the problem with the definition of 'righteous' goes completely over John's head.

and the self-righteousness is most ironic too.

That's not gone over his head though. That's gone somewhere else.

Sendraks wrote:That's not gone over his head though. That's gone somewhere else.

A place where the sun does not shine

And of course, that ISIS bunch of nutters are 'righteous' to the nth degree - in their own opinion, of course.

By the way, John, that 'Ego death' you go on about being 'poor in spirit', could you define for me 'rich in spirit' in terms of the Ego?