Poverty in Spirit

[Locoponydirtman]

I think Jesus successfully illistrated poor in spirit when he described the man in the temple who wouldn't even lift his eyes to heaven but knelt and pounded his chest saying have mercy on me a sinner.
A proper view of yourself in light of a Holy God.
Rather than the fella who extolled his virtue before God in the temple. He does not have a proper view of himself in light of Holy God.
A poor spirit is one who is honest with himself about his sinfullness and his wretched condition that he is hopeless and helpless before God and mornful about it.
Jesus also speaks of this in another place where he says if Sidon and Tyre had seen the miracles the he performed they would have repented in ashes and sack cloth.
I think it's a failure to equate prosperity and poverty as we see it to the biblical terms.
but the worries of this age, the deceitfulness of wealth, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

 

[emekrus]

Hi Emekrus,
When it comes to interpreting Scripture and expounding on it to teach, I am indeed a stickler for grammatical accuracy, so I appreciate your comment on that issue. While I can go overboard at times, I don't think this is one of those.

Unfortunately I can't say I appreciate your comments on the rest of my post, because it appears that you have essentially brushed them aside as irrelevant. Regarding the Laodiceans, it is clear from the context that it is a group of people, not a person. Your argument regarding the "I" statement is weak. I think you're smarter than that.

Please consider this; a logically invalid argument is useless for teaching people the truth of Scripture. You might convince a few people who don't carefully think through your argument, but you will turn off those who do, because they will see your fancy but flawed arguments as deceptive. God's word is worth the effort to interpret and present it carefully.

Let me be perfectly clear: you will not get my "indulgence" when interpreting Scripture! Frankly, I'm disappointed that you even suggest it. I will not park my brain to read your articles. If your argument doesn't stand up to examination, it isn't worth the time to read it! Just because you are discussing the word of God, doesn't mean you should assume that your exegesis is any good. That's asking far too much of your audience, especially if you aren't willing to admit it when you are wrong. All manner of false teaching is embraced by the Church because so many Christians are unable or unwilling to subject their teachers to critical thought. So instead of asking me to be dull, how about you step up and get sharp.

Dear Dino,

I only told you to put off academic prowess concerning our discussion here... I didn't say you should become dull. I just wanted us to pretend to know nothing other than the scriptures. So we can better be edified and edify others. I didn't see how some kind of academic logical analogies was going to help us achieve that. And that was why I asked you to put them aside...

Now for your records, I am the least person you would want to encourage to step up and get sharp...

Here is what I mean...

Along academic lines, I am not behind in anyway. No, not in anyway.

By the grace of God, while I was still in the university, I was an intellectual celebrity from year one to the very end-- even up till date.

I was so good, that my course mates always ran to me for better explanations after lectures. And as a matter of fact, they paid me very well to teach them, even as course mates with delight. My lecturers dreaded my academic challenges. In the end, I graduated as one of the best graduating students.

Then after getting out of school, as I chose to pursue a career in ICT, I taught myself how to write programs. Presently I work very proficiently with three programming languages.

You know, when someone learns and masters programming languages such as Java, Python and PHP and he is able to make good money out of them, that person can't possibly be referred to as a dunce in any sense of the word.

And by God's grace till date, I make my boast in the Lord... there is no academic setting where I find myself, any where in the world that I won't come out as one of the best at least. And that is even if its rocket science.

But its just that when it comes to scriptural discussion, I don't like drawing attentions to any academic prowess. Cos I know there is nothing much in them but only natural, earthly wisdom. So along academic lines, I am the least to be asked to step up and be sharp.

Now back to the scriptures. I wanted to know how you came to the conclusion that in context, the letter to the Laodiceans talks about group instead of an individual. Then I also wanted to know why you believe Jesus used 'I' to refer to a group instead of an individual in the context of the chapter under discuss.

 

[Dino246]

Dear Dino,

I only told you to put off academic prowess concerning our discussion here... I didn't say you should become dull. I just wanted us to pretend to know nothing other than the scriptures. So we can better be edified and edify others. I didn't see how some kind of academic logical analogies was going to help us achieve that. And that was why I asked you to put them aside...

Now for your records, I am the least person you would want to encourage to step up and get sharp...

Here is what I mean...

Along academic lines, I am not behind in anyway. No, not in anyway.

By the grace of God, while I was still in the university, I was an intellectual celebrity from year one to the very end-- even up till date.

I was so good, that my course mates always ran to me for better explanations after lectures. And as a matter of fact, they paid me very well to teach them, even as course mates with delight. My lecturers dreaded my academic challenges. In the end, I graduated as one of the best graduating students.

Then after getting out of school, as I chose to pursue a career in ICT, I taught myself how to write programs. Presently I work very proficiently with three programming languages.

You know, when someone learns and masters programming languages such as Java, Python and PHP and he is able to make good money out of them, that person can't possibly be referred to as a dunce in any sense of the word.

And by God's grace till date, I make my boast in the Lord... there is no academic setting where I find myself, any where in the world that I won't come out as one of the best at least. And that is even if its rocket science.

But its just that when it comes to scriptural discussion, I don't like drawing attentions to any academic prowess. Cos I know there is nothing much in them but only natural, earthly wisdom. So along academic lines, I am the least to be asked to step up and be sharp.

Now back to the scriptures. I wanted to know how you came to the conclusion that in context, the letter to the Laodiceans talks about group instead of an individual. Then I also wanted to know why you believe Jesus used 'I' to refer to a group instead of an individual in the context of the chapter under discuss.

Hi Emekrus,
Thanks for the response. So we're both intelligent people; good. Iron may sharpen iron.

I still encourage you to learn about logical reasoning. I would point you to videos with Dr. Jason Lisle on the subject. He is one of the researchers at Answers in Genesis (answersingenesis.org), who lectures on the role of logic in the realm of apologetics. In short, he argues that using logic is consistent with Scripture, because logic is an aspect of God's creation and ultimately a reflection of His nature. Philosophy might be of man; logic is not.

With regard to the Laodiceans, look to Revelation 1:20 "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." Churches are, of course, groups of persons. Every letter contains the phrase, "Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches." There is that plurality again, not merely multiple churches, but "church" as multiple people.

 

[Marcelo]

It is the denial of self. It means you recognize that you are wretched, vile, and vanity; you understand you can't do anything without Jesus.

Makes sense!

 

[pottersclay]

I've always seen this as a person with no hope.

I hope I can explain this........in Jesus day the Pharisees were respectors of persons. If you were poor or considered unclean or they considered you cursed of God they would make you a type of outcast.
For example when the disciples asked what sin did the blind man parents do to make him blind. The sick and crippled were also targets. This was taught by the rabbis from the scripture the sins of the parents shall visit the children.

Now when Jesus said blessed or happy are they that are poor in spirit he was talking about himself for now their Redeemer has come.
These people were oppressed so bad thinking God wanted nothing to do with them.
Another example is the woman with the blood issue. She is unclean and to never be in the temple according to the law.
They knew and loved God but we're societies out cast.

Might be way off in this one but that's what I've come to understand.

 

[Magenta]

I've always seen this as a person with no hope.

I hope I can explain this........in Jesus day the Pharisees were respectors of persons. If you were poor or considered unclean or they considered you cursed of God they would make you a type of outcast.
For example when the disciples asked what sin did the blind man parents do to make him blind. The sick and crippled were also targets. This was taught by the rabbis from the scripture the sins of the parents shall visit the children.

Now when Jesus said blessed or happy are they that are poor in spirit he was talking about himself for now their Redeemer has come.
These people were oppressed so bad thinking God wanted nothing to do with them.
Another example is the woman with the blood issue. She is unclean and to never be in the temple according to the law.
They knew and loved God but we're societies out cast.

Might be way off in this one but that's what I've come to understand.

That is one of the reasons why the healing of a leper, as an extreme example, was so transformative. Not only were they cleansed of an incurable (in those days) disease, but they were restored to society, and re-united with those they loved, and those who loved them. But, I do not think Jesus was talking about Himself when He mentioned the poor in spirit. The poor in spirit are blessed because they recognize their need of God Or is that what you meant?

 

[emekrus]

Hi Emekrus,
Thanks for the response. So we're both intelligent people; good. Iron may sharpen iron.

I still encourage you to learn about logical reasoning. I would point you to videos with Dr. Jason Lisle on the subject. He is one of the researchers at Answers in Genesis (answersingenesis.org), who lectures on the role of logic in the realm of apologetics. In short, he argues that using logic is consistent with Scripture, because logic is an aspect of God's creation and ultimately a reflection of His nature. Philosophy might be of man; logic is not.

With regard to the Laodiceans, look to Revelation 1:20 "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches." Churches are, of course, groups of persons. Every letter contains the phrase, "Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches." There is that plurality again, not merely multiple churches, but "church" as multiple people.

Well,
I already do have ample knowledge about logical reasoning. At least from school. Then for the Dr. you referenced, he may have a reason for his argument. But my take on the matter is different.

Firstly, logical reasoning of God, scriptures and spiritual things is the bane and stumbling block of so many folks today.

Some months back, a logical brother was asking so many logical questions about God and scriptures which he believes are not logical enough for his level of smartness. As I tried to answer him, he got more logical. He even started faulting many scriptures. Even to the extent of saying many scriptures contradicts...

As I speak to you, that logical brother is on the verge of either atheism or agnosticism. But at the end of the discussion I persuaded him to join me in my folly. I made him understand that I've been having the best of time in my so-called folly...

The case-study above is just one of the tragedies of employing logical reasoning in scriptural interpretation. Instead of studying and interpreting by the help of the Holy Spirit.

Logical reasoning has led many into atheism, agnosticism, delusion, Apostasy, etc... On daily basis the number of believers who are falling for the deception of human logic is increasing on an astronomic rate. Because of course, they are getting smarter by the day. And their so-called smartness quickly gets on their spiritual path and before long, they trip and miss it all together.

So I for one, I won't prescribe logical reasoning to scriptural interpretation. Rather, I will prescribe, study, meditation and prayers for spiritual insight in scriptural exegesis.

That said, let's go back to the verse of Revelation that we are discussing. Given your exegesis, let me highlight a point from the same chapter and see what you make of it...

Revelation 3:14

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

The emboldened part of the verse above shows clearly that this letter was written to an individual. not a group. It says to the 'angel of the church of the Laodiceans write'. Well 'angel' here is singular not plural.

So what do you say?

 

[pottersclay]

That is one of the reasons why the healing of a leper, as an extreme example, was so transformative. Not only were they cleansed of an incurable (in those days) disease, but they were restored to society, and re-united with those they loved, and those who loved them. But, I do not think Jesus was talking about Himself when He mentioned the poor in spirit. The poor in spirit are blessed because they recognize their need of God Or is that what you meant?

Absolutely sis thank you, Jesus was well aware of it.

 

[Dino246]

Well,
I already do have ample knowledge about logical reasoning. At least from school. Then for the Dr. you referenced, he may have a reason for his argument. But my take on the matter is different.

Firstly, logical reasoning of God, scriptures and spiritual things is the bane and stumbling block of so many folks today.

Some months back, a logical brother was asking so many logical questions about God and scriptures which he believes are not logical enough for his level of smartness. As I tried to answer him, he got more logical. He even started faulting many scriptures. Even to the extent of saying many scriptures contradicts...

As I speak to you, that logical brother is on the verge of either atheism or agnosticism. But at the end of the discussion I persuaded him to join me in my folly. I made him understand that I've been having the best of time in my so-called folly...

The case-study above is just one of the tragedies of employing logical reasoning in scriptural interpretation. Instead of studying and interpreting by the help of the Holy Spirit.

Logical reasoning has led many into atheism, agnosticism, delusion, Apostasy, etc... On daily basis the number of believers who are falling for the deception of human logic is increasing on an astronomic rate. Because of course, they are getting smarter by the day. And their so-called smartness quickly gets on their spiritual path and before long, they trip and miss it all together.

So I for one, I won't prescribe logical reasoning to scriptural interpretation. Rather, I will prescribe, study, meditation and prayers for spiritual insight in scriptural exegesis.

That said, let's go back to the verse of Revelation that we are discussing. Given your exegesis, let me highlight a point from the same chapter and see what you make of it...

Revelation 3:14

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

The emboldened part of the verse above shows clearly that this letter was written to an individual. not a group. It says to the 'angel of the church of the Laodiceans write'. Well 'angel' here is singular not plural.

So what do you say?

Hi again,
I agree, "angel" in verse 14 is singular, but "church" is compound singular.

Now, let's deal with the more important issue. Given that you claim to have had training in logic, surely you can see that your conclusion in the OP, which has absolutely no direct support from the verses provided, is not valid. Going by your explanation above, you seem to think that because some people misuse logic, you can disregard it. You can't; bad arguments are bad arguments regardless of the subject. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, and no amount of avoiding "logic" will change that.

 

[emekrus]

Hi again,
I agree, "angel" in verse 14 is singular, but "church" is compound singular.

Now, let's deal with the more important issue. Given that you claim to have had training in logic, surely you can see that your conclusion in the OP, which has absolutely no direct support from the verses provided, is not valid. Going by your explanation above, you seem to think that because some people misuse logic, you can disregard it. You can't; bad arguments are bad arguments regardless of the subject. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises, and no amount of avoiding "logic" will change that.

Dino,

You are very welcome.

Now let's face the major issue like you said.

I wanted to know how you came to the 'logical' conclusion that 'poor in spirit' as used by our Lord Jesus in the opening text of the OP, refers to material poverty.

How does being poor in spirit translate to material poverty?

Please, what are the parameters for your conclusion biblically?

 

[Dino246]

Dino,

You are very welcome.

Now let's face the major issue like you said.

I wanted to know how you came to the 'logical' conclusion that 'poor in spirit' as used by our Lord Jesus in the opening text of the OP, refers to material poverty.

How does being poor in spirit translate to material poverty?

Please, what are the parameters for your conclusion biblically?

We aren't discussing my conclusion, for I haven't stated one. We are dealing with your conclusion that is not supported by your premises. Don't try to gloss over that by focusing only on the ideas in your conclusion.

 

[emekrus]

We aren't discussing my conclusion, for I haven't stated one. We are dealing with your conclusion that is not supported by your premises. Don't try to gloss over that by focusing only on the ideas in your conclusion.

Can you come out clear with the part of my post you have problem with so we can discuss it. Come out clear in plain English the part of my conclusion you have a problem with let's discuss it.

 

[Nehemiah6]

How does being poor in spirit translate to material poverty?

It does not. Poverty in spirit pertains to our attitude towards everything that comes into our lives after we are children of God. It means that we recognize that all we are and all we have is purely by the grace of God, and based upon the merits of Christ alone.

That we have earned nothing from God, and deserve nothing from God, and therefore everything belongs to God, not to us. That we are no better than anyone else, and that everything can be taken away in an instant (as happened to Job).

If it so happens that God blesses us materially, then that is a stewardship and a trusteeship, and we must give account. So -- just like Job and Abraham -- one can be materially wealthy yet poor in spirit. At the same time, since covetousness is idolatry, those who idolize their wealthy are NOT poor in spirit. And the man who gloated over his wealth, went to Hades the same night, because he said he had need of nothing (just like the Laodiceans). The Rich Man who ignored Lazarus also went to Hades in order to be in torment, because he made his wealth his god.

 

[Dino246]

Can you come out clear with the part of my post you have problem with so we can discuss it. Come out clear in plain English the part of my conclusion you have a problem with let's discuss it.

Sure... here are the relevant parts of your OP. with the opening and supporting texts bolded:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” – Matthew 5:3

All through scriptures, it is very evident that God delights in the prosperity and greatness of his children. As a matter of fact, the scripture tells us that the Lord has bequeathed all his creation to his children—The Church. ...

So What Does Poverty in Spirit Mean?

To better understand poverty in spirit we have to consider the biblical examples the Lord spoke against their attitudes with wealth. Firstly, let’s consider the fellow that ran to Jesus to ask him how to inherit eternal life (Mark 10:17-20).

After his conversation with the Lord, the Lord asked him to go sell all he had and give them to the poor, and come, take up the cross and follow him ( Mark 10:21). ...

That said, let’s consider another example. Because a matter must be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses.

“ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; these things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God, I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot… Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked”—Revelation 3:14 & 17.

Your basic assertion is that being "poor in spirit" does not mean material poverty. You provide two passages to support that assertion. Had your conclusion been simply, "Poverty of spirit cannot mean material poverty" all would have been well, and I would not have made an issue of it.

However, that was not your conclusion. Rather, your conclusion was this:

So from the above two examples, we can rightly define poverty in spirit to mean, a holistic trust in the Lord, and absolute detachment from possessions, position or achievements. Poverty in spirit means giving up on everything you possess to the Lord in your heart

The passages you discussed say nothing about spiritual poverty. Therefore your conclusion cannot be a logically-valid affirmative statement regarding the nature of spiritual poverty. You have "taught" your reader nothing in a positive sense about it; you have only demonstrated what it IS NOT.

In short, your conclusion is a non sequitur; it does not follow from the arguments you have presented. No amount of telling what 'X' is not can tell us anything about what 'X' is.

That's about as clear as I can make it.

 

[LaJolla]

Poor in Spirit? Perhaps this means those who are like 'little children', not aware of their spiritual core, who are as living creatures protected and loved by the Father of Life. The Father blesses them with His power and protection. Many, many people have no idea how they exist and how they have life. They are ripe to receive the truth of the miracle of their spiritual core, their divine childhood. When they are shown their spiritual heritage in Christ, who saves the lowly, they are blessed. Blessed are the poor in spirit. The Father's love is the source of ALL BLESSING. Logic doesn't enter into it. He loves you utterly and our human mind is a silly cartoon. His ways are not our ways. Don't forget that.

 

[emekrus]

Sure... here are the relevant parts of your OP. with the opening and supporting texts bolded:



Your basic assertion is that being "poor in spirit" does not mean material poverty. You provide two passages to support that assertion. Had your conclusion been simply, "Poverty of spirit cannot mean material poverty" all would have been well, and I would not have made an issue of it.

However, that was not your conclusion. Rather, your conclusion was this:



The passages you discussed say nothing about spiritual poverty. Therefore your conclusion cannot be a logically-valid affirmative statement regarding the nature of spiritual poverty. You have "taught" your reader nothing in a positive sense about it; you have only demonstrated what it IS NOT.

In short, your conclusion is a non sequitur; it does not follow from the arguments you have presented. No amount of telling what 'X' is not can tell us anything about what 'X' is.

That's about as clear as I can make it.

Alright,

Brother Dino. I see you do have so much passion for logical reasoning. Perhaps its a part of you already. Maybe by reason of your training. And I must say, I perfectly understand.

But however, you must understand that not everyone reading this thread understands academic jargon such as 'non sequitur'.

As a person, I actually have gamut of jargon and tech words in my toolbox...

Firstly, I have my first degree in Economics. Then I am a programmer by occupation, apart from ministry. And of course, you should understand that the major working tool of a programmer is logical reasoning. And the major income I earn from programming actually come from coding complex logic into Web Functionalities.

Yeah, I also fancy academic and tech jargon like you do. But only that I try to use them only when appropriate in order not to detract from my MWR (Most Wanted Response).

Here is what I mean...

Apart from being an Economist, and a proficient Programmer, I am also an effective Copywriter by God's grace.

And as such, I do know the detracting effects of jargon and tech talks from the MWR and communication in general.

You see, the above reason is why I even sometimes use what we call 'Pidgin English' to preach in my public bus evangelism. So I can reach as much people as possible with my words.

See, the major maxim behind this my approach to communication, is the wisdom I got from the quote of a pro-writer, which says:

"To write well, think like a wise man, but talk like ordinary people".

And applying that wisdom in communication has paid off allots to me. Both in ministry and copywriting. Hence, my continual pressing on you to get rid of academic jargon in our discussion here.

Then added to that, I believe the below statements of the Apostle Paul could also pass my point across clearer:

1 Corinthians 2:2
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

1Corinthians 3:18

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."

Now concerning the conclusion of my article which you think is not passing the message across to the audience, I wanted to let you know that your perception isn't actually so. Cos this particular article has already blessed so many as we speak. And I am very sanguine about that in my spirit and with the response I am currently getting all over the net.

You only posted part of my conclusion, why not post everything? If you read the entire conclusion of my article with an open-mind, I believe you'll get the gist of my definition and be blessed by it. Instead of having an issue with it.

Bless you.

 

[Dino246]

Alright,

Brother Dino. I see you do have so much passion for logical reasoning. Perhaps its a part of you already. Maybe by reason of your training. And I must say, I perfectly understand.

But however, you must understand that not everyone reading this thread understands academic jargon such as 'non sequitur'.

As a person, I actually have gamut of jargon and tech words in my toolbox...

Firstly, I have my first degree in Economics. Then I am a programmer by occupation, apart from ministry. And of course, you should understand that the major working tool of a programmer is logical reasoning. And the major income I earn from programming actually come from coding complex logic into Web Functionalities.

Yeah, I also fancy academic and tech jargon like you do. But only that I try to use them only when appropriate in order not to detract from my MWR (Most Wanted Response).

Here is what I mean...

Apart from being an Economist, and a proficient Programmer, I am also an effective Copywriter by God's grace.

And as such, I do know the detracting effects of jargon and tech talks from the MWR and communication in general.

You see, the above reason is why I even sometimes use what we call 'Pidgin English' to preach in my public bus evangelism. So I can reach as much people as possible with my words.

See, the major maxim behind this my approach to communication, is the wisdom I got from the quote of a pro-writer, which says:

"To write well, think like a wise man, but talk like ordinary people".

And applying that wisdom in communication has paid off allots to me. Both in ministry and copywriting. Hence, my continual pressing on you to get rid of academic jargon in our discussion here.

Then added to that, I believe the below statements of the Apostle Paul could also pass my point across clearer:

1 Corinthians 2:2
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

1Corinthians 3:18

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."

Now concerning the conclusion of my article which you think is not passing the message across to the audience, I wanted to let you know that your perception isn't actually so. Cos this particular article has already blessed so many as we speak. And I am very sanguine about that in my spirit and with the response I am currently getting all over the net.

You only posted part of my conclusion, why not post everything? If you read the entire conclusion of my article with an open-mind, I believe you'll get the gist of my definition and be blessed by it. Instead of having an issue with it.

Bless you.

Hi Emekrus,
Again, I'm disappointed by your response. You've spent two-thirds of your response telling of how you use simple terminology despite your larger vocabulary. You focused on two words which are the correct term for the fallacy you employed. However, I also explained precisely what they mean in the same sentence, and further explained my criticism in that paragraph.

For the third time, my criticism is that your conclusion does not follow from your arguments. You used verses which support the idea that God is not against material wealth, but say nothing about spiritual poverty. Your conclusion describes what spiritual poverty is, when you have actually taught the reader nothing about spiritual poverty by the verses you used. Please pay attention to the words in italics; they are there for a reason.

 

[emekrus]

Hi Emekrus,
Again, I'm disappointed by your response. You've spent two-thirds of your response telling of how you use simple terminology despite your larger vocabulary. You focused on two words which are the correct term for the fallacy you employed. However, I also explained precisely what they mean in the same sentence, and further explained my criticism in that paragraph.

For the third time, my criticism is that your conclusion does not follow from your arguments. You used verses which support the idea that God is not against material wealth, but say nothing about spiritual poverty. Your conclusion describes what spiritual poverty is, when you have actually taught the reader nothing about spiritual poverty by the verses you used. Please pay attention to the words in italics; they are there for a reason.

Alright Brother Dino,

What's important is that at least you got the meaning of what spiritual poverty is anyway...

And I believe others did from the response I am getting. And better still, they are also contributing their own understanding of what spiritual poverty means so we can all learn...

So with that I believe we should draw the curtain on the argument.

If you-- Brother Dino-- believe you have a better explanation for what spiritual poverty means, the floor is open. Go ahead and share so we can all be blessed as well.

Bless you.

 

[LaJolla]

Dear Dino,

I only told you to put off academic prowess concerning our discussion here... I didn't say you should become dull. I just wanted us to pretend to know nothing other than the scriptures. So we can better be edified and edify others. I didn't see how some kind of academic logical analogies was going to help us achieve that. And that was why I asked you to put them aside...

Now for your records, I am the least person you would want to encourage to step up and get sharp...

Here is what I mean...

Along academic lines, I am not behind in anyway. No, not in anyway.

By the grace of God, while I was still in the university, I was an intellectual celebrity from year one to the very end-- even up till date.

I was so good, that my course mates always ran to me for better explanations after lectures. And as a matter of fact, they paid me very well to teach them, even as course mates with delight. My lecturers dreaded my academic challenges. In the end, I graduated as one of the best graduating students.

Then after getting out of school, as I chose to pursue a career in ICT, I taught myself how to write programs. Presently I work very proficiently with three programming languages.

You know, when someone learns and masters programming languages such as Java, Python and PHP and he is able to make good money out of them, that person can't possibly be referred to as a dunce in any sense of the word.

And by God's grace till date, I make my boast in the Lord... there is no academic setting where I find myself, any where in the world that I won't come out as one of the best at least. And that is even if its rocket science.

But its just that when it comes to scriptural discussion, I don't like drawing attentions to any academic prowess. Cos I know there is nothing much in them but only natural, earthly wisdom. So along academic lines, I am the least to be asked to step up and be sharp.

Now back to the scriptures. I wanted to know how you came to the conclusion that in context, the letter to the Laodiceans talks about group instead of an individual. Then I also wanted to know why you believe Jesus used 'I' to refer to a group instead of an individual in the context of the chapter under discuss.

Matthew 18:2-4 King James Version (KJV)

2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Worldly wisdom is a blind alley. Academia is a blind alley, but it feeds the ego. IMHO.