BCSpace Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 Please do not attempt to tell me what my views are and/or instruct me on the arguments I have made.If you will more carefully read my last post, you will see that I addressed your statement in post #20 as to what the point of this thread is; whether you agree with that point or not. Do you have an answer or commentary for it?I also addressed your secondary point which you expressed your post #20...."the fact[sic] that Jesus' sermon preaches eschatological "happiness" to those in a state of poverty"..... but telling you why I disagree with your claim that it is a fact. Do you have any answer or commentary for that also?
David Bokovoy Posted December 16, 2010 Author Posted December 16, 2010 If you will more carefully read my last post, you will see that I addressed your statement in post #20 as to what the point of this thread is; whether you agree with that point or not. Do you have an answer or commentary for it?I also addressed your secondary point which you expressed your post #20...."the fact[sic] that Jesus' sermon preaches eschatological "happiness" to those in a state of poverty"..... but telling you why I disagree with your claim that it is a fact. Do you have any answer or commentary for that also?Sure, I'll be happy to provide you with some commentary. Thank you for trying to critique my views. Matthew was opposed to asceticism as a pathway to salvation, so the better argument might be a matter of the Apostle correcting a notion promulgated by the physician Seventy. Can you please support your claim that the gospel of Matthew takes precedence over the gospel of Luke?! Is this simply your opinion or do you have some evidence to back up this odd proposal? Certainly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never made this assertion.Moreover, the author of the gospel of Matthew was not Matthew, the New Testament Apostle. There
TAO Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 I think one may be going somewhere along the right lines here. However... I don't think materially poor is always necessary (but it is ideal); I think being totally humble and meek is more important, that it is. And totally humble and meek people will give of their substance to others.Also, look at this:Isaiah 66:2For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.He truly looks for those, that he does =).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.