I’m afraid this cannot be so. This seems like the polar opposite but similar in style to our friend Bibleman. He thinks his interpretation is the truth and thereby “what God meant” and not really subject to interpretation. You believe you do not interpret and just read the text and know what it means.
Everybody and I mean everybody who reads the Bible with any intention other than entertainment, interprets the Bible. There is no other possible way you can come to any discussion of what the Bible means without having and presenting your interpretation. There are many flavors of interpretation. Yours is one. Biblemans is another. The question for me isn’t did Jesus mean what he said. One big question is did Jesus even say that.
Have you read Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman?I think you’d find it quite interesting.
The other questions are "what are the possible implications or meanings of that statement? What is the context? How does it compare with other passages and how do the combined passages help me understand JC a little better. While doing this I understand that I cannot get a perfectly clear picture of JC through reading the Bible. I do what I can and trust to something more for the rest.
This is exactly about priorities.
This is an interesting chapter. He is speaking to the apostles and a few verses later they ask “are you speaking to us or everyone” Jesus tells another story that ends with
IMHO, this is again about priorities and stewardship.
Well, no. It is a teaching story with few details but the beggar laid at the door with sores hoping to feed on crumbs from the rich mans table. This really implies that the rich man who lived in luxury everyday did nothing to help Lazuarus. Even with that obvious implication the specifics of why he went to hell don’t appear because the rich mans punishment is not really the point of the lesson. Your conclusion is an example of that thing you don’t do. Interpretation.
It’s interesting that in that same chapter is the parable of the shrewd manager which is about managing worldly goods. Jesus says
What does your non interpretation tell you about that?
I’m afraid your non interpretation got this one wrong too. They sold a piece of property and lied about how much they sold it for. It wasn’t their all. Peter tells him “4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?”
It appears he wasn’t required to give all the money, but chose to lie about it anyway. His wife repeated the lie. It’s a little unclear in the first few lines. It doesn’t say if he was asked, told, or volunteered to sell a piece of land. At the end of chapter 4 there’s an interesting section about the Christians sharing everything
Thats happened since in Christian history. The LDS church was quite prosperous for this reason. Even so this isn’t a commandment for all Christians to do this. It’s an example of priorities.
BTW, personaly I think the story of Ananias and his wife is a little piece of BS added later for this reason. “11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.”
Again this could be a a little BS to convince people to support the religious leaders. Ever read Leviticus. It’s a howl.
The dickens you say?
Obviously my calculations about the second coming were a wee bit off.
I’ve already responded to this silliness. You do interpret and that makes your statement here incorrect. I can disagree with you and Bibleman and decide to interpret Jesus’ teachings for myself. To choose my own path, without claiming it’s the right path for everybody else.
I pretty much stick to what it says. If it describes something as literal event I take it the authors meant as such. If it describes something as a parable I take it as that. If Jesus gives a clear message I’ll state that. If he contradicts himself, I’ll say that as well. If the bible or Jesus says something nonsensical I’ll say that too.
That’s a good question and it’s a question you can not answer. I don’t think I have ever said nor even implied that the bible is correct in attributing any words to Jesus. I merely say that it is illogical to cherry pick and attribute to Jesus as real words, only those words you find pleasing. Jesus could very well have been a complete loon you know.
No.
What do you mean by “trust to something more”?
The quote says nothing about priorities. It says do not lay up treasures on earth. It does not say it’s ok to lay up treasures on earth so long as you prioritize god.
Ends with no clear answer to Peter’s question.
You’re saying the rich man’s punishment is not the point of the lesson, but though the story leaves out many details, Jesus certainly thought the punishment part was important enough to describe in some detail. Jesus also (allegedly) makes the point that the rich man is being punished because he had it good in life, Jesus says nothing about the mans willingness to share. While I don’t think this is an unreasonable conclusion, Jesus did not say this is why the rich man was to suffer. Again perhaps the rich man thought Lazarus should get a job, perhaps he thought, as Schopenhauer did, that giving alms to a beggar only prolongs their torment, perhaps he thought as Jesus did that this life is of relative unimportance as compared to the future and alleviating the beggars torment would only endanger him of hell. Who knows.
…another story which is fairly nonsensical but, does not say it’s ok to be rich, and ends with the statement that you can not serve both god and mammon, mammon being money.
Again it does not say that Ananias lied, I just says Peter accused him of such, exactly as I wrote earlier. Regardless Annanias was struck dead and striking people dead is not a loving thing to do.
It does say that Annanias’ wife lied and was struck dead, not for lying but for tempting the spirit of the lord, whatever that means. Again, this is not forgiving behavior. What you are missing is the point that the earliest followers of Christianity felt that it best to give up their possessions and live in a commune, which is in fair alignment with the teachings of Jesus.
I have shown you were Jesus says not to store up treasures on earth. I have shown you where he says to give your stuff away. I have shown you that earlier followers of Jesus did so, and if they held back they died suspiciously. Now you tell me where Jesus says it’s ok to be rich or where it’s as easy for a rich man to get into heaven as it is for a camel to walk through the desert.
I think the story of Ananias is a lot of BS, as is common with just about every other religion, which I trust you give far less credence.
Okay. Do you then decide what the message of the many parables is? Are you convinced your assessment of the parables lesson is the correct one. Are you the one to decide when Jesus gives a clear message and what that message is? when JC contradicts himself? When he says something nonsensical?
If you answered yes to most of these then you might be the atheist version of Bibleman. An Atheist literalist perhaps.
It is the messege that is relevant and how that message moves us. I know you give no credence to the inner voice but many others do. It is how the words resonate within us as we try to understand them that makes them real or not. Not merely the text. I don’t draw my beliefs just from Christ or the Bible. I look for pieces of a puzzle which seem to fit and make the picture clearer even though I don’t know what the completed picture will be.
Ehrman is a former fundie who became an agnostic as he studied the Bible and it’s history. He is a biblical scholar with plenty of credentials. The book I mentioned is a look at the NT through the lens of textual criticism. Fascinating if the subject interrests you.
I believe in the inner voice that is our connection to God and each other. JC calls it the Holy Spirit and says it will lead us into all truth. My experiences with this inner voice have always been positive. So, I will examine objective evidence and consider it, but when it comes to the more subjective nature of the spiritual journey , such as,what is the nature of truth and love and what do they require of me, I will listen for the inner voice for an intuitive insight logic and reason may not be able to provide.
it says to lay up treasures in heaven rather than on earth because the ones on earth are temporary and the ones in heaven aren’t. Clearly he is saying make treasures in heaven your priority. Your useing a strictly literall reading because it suits your own interpretation. Read this along with what JRDpointed out and we see the intent.
Not clear to whom? It’s not clear to you because the messege doesn’t support your interpretation.
He also didn’t say specifically that the rich man was punished for being rich. You however who claims to just read whats there have asserted that twice.
What is implied in the lesson is that even though he had ample means to do something to alleviate the suffering of a fellow human on his very doorstep , he chose to do nothing. Regardless of what his justification was that’s pretty despicable by almost any standard. Regardless, there’s no statement of him being punished solely for being rich, which was your assertion.
funny how the stories that don’t support your arguments are nonsensical or unclear. For someone who reads whats there how did you miss this
The story is about using our worldly wealth wisely. Hardly something that would be taught if we clearly weren’t supposed to have any.
[QUOTE]
You are very selective in which scriptures you read in a very literal fashion and which ones you dismiss as unclear or nonsensical. Man if that isn’t a fundie tactic all the way. Incredibly ironic coming from you.
JDR and I already have. Even the verse you paraphrase here which appears in three gospels recognizes that material wealth is tempting but since it is not impossible for a camel to get through the needles eye gate , it must not be impossible for a rich man to get into heaven. He must keep God as his priority not money. He must manage his material wealth responsibly and compassionately. because to him whom more is given more is required.
We’ve already covered those scriptures.
In that respect you would be mistaken. Buddha and JC taught many of the same things and Buddha was around about 600 years sooner.
As usual with a certain breed of self-proclaimed Christian when faced with the yawning contradiction between what they want to do and what Jesus said the defense invoked is essentially:
“Jesus was an inarticulate boob who couldn’t form a coherent sentence if his life depended upon it.”
If the message of a parable appears clear I say so, if it is ambiguous I say so also. If Jesus says plainly that unbelievers will burn in hell, I feel comfortable saying he said so and that I am not “interpreting” is words as anything other than what they are. When Jesus contradicts himself, and it is relevant to the conversation I try to point that out. When he says something nonsensical I don’t read much into it except to say it’s nonsensical. If you can’t see a difference between what I do and what Bible man does, that’s you problem not mine.
My inner voice tells me not to trust your inner voice.
And clearly Jesus said do not to lay treasures up on earth.
If it is clear to you then, tell me where Jesus answered Peter’s. Was Jesus speaking just to the disciples in said speech or to everyone?
Abrahams answer to the rich man correlated that fact that had good things on earth and would suffer in hell. You could argue that correlation does not equal causation but when we consider Jesus other statements admonishing riches your objections ring a little empty.
Well let’s use a little logic here. The rich man could have supported Lazarus as much as was needed. But there are lots of other beggars out there; whose support of all would surely bankrupt the rich man. Would the rich man be justified in helping only Lazarus, while turning a blind eye to all the others in the area? In light of the other things Jesus had to say about charity and the poor, I would say probably not. So to be truly consistent with the teachings of Christ the rich man should give away all his money to give to the poor, which would be the same as not being rich.
Read the story again and read a little further. I still don’t think that particular story is easily comprehensible but it ends with you not being able to serve both god and money, and the Pharisees who loved money sneering. Even the verse you quote says when the wealth is “gone” will you be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
So you think Jesus taught that it’s ok to be rich? I would bet Bible man, is more likely to agree with you than me on this topic. Fundies usually bend over backwards just like you in the “ok to be rich” department.
Yes he did. And if you ignore the context and surrounding verses it supports your assertion. Let’s see, is that the cherry picking you mentioned earlier?
Jesus said, it isn’t that simple. If you’re given more you’re responsible for more. That’s the principle that applies to everyone.
on a side note there are verses here that most Christians ignore.
Different degrees of punishments?? Not just heaven and hell? what’s up with that? This doesn’t relate to our discussion. I just think it’s interesting
And you said you don’t interpret. You were just being modest weren’t you?
You’re one of the best.
That’s what you call logic? It seems like the same wounded rationalization any conservative Christian might use to justify their assertions. Sorry! It doesn’t follow.
It says you can’t serve two masters. You can’t *serve *God and money. It doesn’t say you can’t have money and serve God, which is what you are saying.
I’m not sure which version you read but I read several and it doesn’t say “when your wealth is gone will you be welcome” it says when your wealth is gone you will be welcome. It’s clearly about stewardship of what we have. If we can be welcome after our wealth is gone that sorta indicates we can have wealth doesn’t it?
I guess your non interpretation glasses were foggy.
I think what is clear over and over again is that Jeus taught we must put our committment to God, in the form of truth and love absolutely first and in this he offered no compromise whatsoever. It must come before our concern for our own physical well being, certainly before our concerns over status and possessions. Even before the opinions and approval of those we love.
He also recognized in many of the verses you point out that it is extremely difficult to have worldly wealth and and not let it become your first priority.
To him whom more is given more is required. It isn’t about a rule to not have wealth or to tithe 10%. It’s about useing what you have in the most positive way.
A rare medical condition caused by an old wrestling injury. Fortunately an infomercial told me about a new medicine that treats it.
See how that works. I made a mistake and thanked the person who corrected me. It’s not so bad really.
Still , in tha same chapter Jesus says it’s not impossible, which I interpret as it is in fact possible. That may seem like a real stretch as interpretations go but thats how I see it.
You make some good observations and thought provoking points. When it comes right down to defending your take on it you use the same cherry picking, rationalization, techniques you critisize in others. You won’t acknowledge that you interpret the Bible which seems just ridiculous to me since nothing else is possible. Believing that you insist that your view is the correct one and call that logic.
My not seeing the differences between you and Bibleman may be my problem. You not seeing the similarities is yours.
Where did you get that idea. My cognition quite frequently, if not most of the time, takes the place of an inner dialogue. That inner voice of mine, says you still have a lot of weeds growing in that mind of yours.
Ok, so you agree that Jesus says not to store up treasures on earth, but you think it’s ok anyway, when you could easily use the surplus money to feed the poor just like Lazarus’s rich acquaintance. Am I getting you right?
So you are saying that when Jesus said “Sell what you have and give alms,” he was applying that to everyone. Well, that’s pretty much what I thought he meant. But I still don’t see a clear answer as Jesus responds to Peters question in Luke 12:14. Where in the getting your answer from?
Ok, thanks.
So you think you should be generous only with the poor in your immediate proximity?
As I cited earlier Jesus said:
“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Matthew 6:19-21
I hope you notice he says that where your treasure is your heart will be also, this does imply that if you have earthly treasure, your heart is on it rather than on god. Taken with the story of Lazarus (not the one where Jesus rose him from the dead) it also implies that people are suffering that one, or you, could easily feed with that surplus wealth that you spent on a big screen TV.
I generally read the KJV, but I made an effort to look up the verse in the version you were quoting from. NIV? It looks like you are trying to draw some distinction of meaning between what you have quoted but I’m not seeing any material difference. The parable was talking about the writing off of debts, not the hoarding of wealth which you seem to be in favor of.
I think it sorta indicates that you will be welcome after you gave your wealth away. Don’t it? Jesus did not say to the rich man (the camel through eye of a needle guy) that he can never be saved, but rather he can be saved if he gave his your wealth away.
Since it is impossible for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, that sounds like it’s impossible for a rich man to get to heaven. However, Jesus did say all things are possible so I suppose he can miracle a rich man to heaven, though he didn’t seem very interested in doing so with the man in question regardless of the fact that the man had already said he kept the commandments and appeared to trust in Jesus.
What were are similarities again? Was it confidence?
BTW, I was going through my notes and found some more scripture for you.
“And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.” Luke 6: 20-21 & 24-25
So, how are you going to interpret that one? You know it’s not that hard to say you are wrong.
Ahhh that inner voice. I am aware that I have more to learn and understand. I understand you better now.
I think you’re getting me alright but refusing to admit it. You are pulling one line {not even a complete sentence} and using a literal reading to support your position. It’s ludicrous. He also says lay up treasures in heaven. There’s that priorities thing again. If you have money but still place God first then any material things you have are only a means to serve. The line you keep quoting is not simply about having any material possessions but about making them your first priority. That’s exactly what “21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” means. Value heaven more than anything that fades with time where moth and rust corrupts. That’s exactly what" If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness" It’s about what you value most.
It’s what I said in my previous post. Jesus taught put the inner journey first. No exceptions or compromises.
No that’s not what I’m saying at all.
I know. That’s why I took all this time to help straighten you out.
From Luke 14 which I assume you’ve already read, and I’ve already quoted. Jesus says there’s not one rule for everybody because everybody is not given the same. I think it’s clear enough for you.
Never said or implied that. Do you think Jesus wanted the Rich man to call the Christian children’s network and sponsor some kids in another country?
Of course I noticed it. Your non interpretation, statement of it’s implication is clearly wrong in it’s definitive nature. Jesus says repeatedly that worldly possessions are a real temptation and difficult {but not impossible} to deal with. He also clearly says that seeking God must be the first priority, with no exceptions or compromises. This passage reiterates that teaching. It means *don’t value *worldly possessions. That’s not the same as don’t have any.
FTR I think Christians and followers of Jesus in general {including myself} fall far short of Jesus teaching. I think multi million dollar churches are obscene. I completely disagree with your assertion but I know that in this wealthy country we could be doing a lot more than we’re doing. That’s not the discussion at hand though.
Well you got it wrong from the KJV too.
It’s interesting that you read a version that many people recognize as a poor English translation. If you’re interested in criticizing what Jesus said perhaps you could take the time to actually use a more accurate version.
Ahhh, the snide baseless slam. How unique and refreshing. Nowhere have I said or implied I’m in favor of hording wealth. Not that I expect a detail like that to get in your way.
You don’t see any material difference between your incorrect phrasing and my correct phrasing? You seriously don’t see a difference between *will you * and you will?? That’s very sad.
Sorta not. You don’t seem to want to read this one as literally as some others. How come?
No that’s not what he said even in the KJV. It’s an interesting scripture
Jesus answers his question by saying obey the commandments. The man insists that he has done all that and asks “What do I still lack?”
Then Jesus says “If you want to be perfect, go etc.” not “if you want to be saved”
The question is whats the difference between ,follow the commandments to eternal life, and being perfect?
Since Jesus also said the kingdom of Heaven is within I’d say he was talking about a rich man changing his heart and putting God first. You know, treasures in heaven. In the story Jesus seemed to indicate that he could continue on the path he was on and he would have eternal life. He didn’t demand or expect that the man was ready to give up his wealth. It was the man who prompted that response by asking “What do I lack?” Jesus responded “If you want to be perfect”
He sensed the man wasn’t ready but by answering as he did he made the man aware as well"
Of a sort. You are both so confident that your own take on the scripture is the right one that you don’t seriously consider anyone else’s view. You are both so sure you know which scriptures are literal and which are not, which are unclear, and which don’t mean what whomever you’re talking to thinks they mean. You are both confident that your distorted reasoning and stubborn denial is actually logic.
Gosh it’s swell.
by quoting the scriptures you left out, {a nasty habit} you know, the context.
starting with the first words of verse 20. You post the number but not the entire verse. Sneaky sneaky,
“20Looking at his disciples, he said:”
He’s speaking to his disciples and their specific mission. He reinforces this when he says "23"Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets. “and
" 26Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets.”
These men were called for something special that required more of them. He says this in front of the crowd for the “their fathers” effect warning them not to repeat the mistakes of their fathers.
It’s all so obvious in context. Just as obvious as your shoddy habit of removing the context in order to misrepresent the meaning of the passage. It a dishonest debate style and I’ve wasted enough time on it.
Ah but what he really meant, if you squint your eyes and look at these 7 verses in the old testament and this collection of random quotes from the NT is that he meant the opposite. Which happens to coincide with my interests.
It completely bugs me that people act as if Jesus was addressing philosophers and not ordinary folk. I’m with badchat and Occam. Barring translation issues the words of Jesus mean whatever they most plainly say. Meaning rich people are screwed.
Yes, he says lay up treasures in heaven. Do not lay them up on earth. I understand taking someone at their actual word is very difficult when they are saying something you don’t want them to say. You a banker or something?
Jesus never once uses the word priorities.
Cite?
That’s not what that verse says. You can argue the contrary till your blue in the face.
What in inner journey? Where did he say that?
Jesus did say to the disciples to sell what they have and give alms. Peter asked if he meant this just for them or for everyone. You answered everyone.
Peters question was referring to a parable in Luke Chapter 12. Luke 14 is referring to an entirely different period of time. And while were at it, I don’t see any verse in Luke 14 that says what you say it does. Please cite it specifically. Also please cite a verse where the words actually say what you mean, rather than one that you claim means what you say.
BTW, Luke 14:33 says: ”So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he can not be my disciple.”
So you do think that a rich man should support more than the person at his doorstep. Good that’s what I think Jesus would have said too. It does follow that by supporting freeloaders outside of ones immediate proximity one will run out of money and no longer be rich right?
If children are still starving and the man still has wealth I’d say yes.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say Jesus demanded no worldly possessions, but he was definitely against storing up treasures of wealth, riches etc. Also Jesus did say not to store up worldly treasures, this “value” stuff is some is something you made up.
It’s not like you are trying and falling short. With a lot of stuff, the acquisition of wealth being an example, you don’t even seem to think you are doing wrong by falling short. And why should you care anyway, you’ve said Jesus is just an man like us and your not a Christian.
Got what wrong?
I generally look things up from the version that I read before and have highlighted. Lots of Christians think the KJV is the only version worth mentioning. I personally don’t care much material difference between versions, but I like the old English sound of the KJV.
You are arguing that collecting wealth is ok, are you not? The verses in question were about writing off debts, were they not? How is that baseless?
I’m not following you. Please state your gripe completely with what I quoted and what you think should have been quoted.
I read your verse literally. The parable was about a manager excusing a portion of his masters debts. This made the covetous Pharisees sneer, right?
Worth noting is the “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven.” Also worth noting is the part about it being easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven.
I seriously consider Diogenes the Cynics view, even Tomndebbs, I just don’t seriously consider yours.
Why don’t you read my quote again you liar. I cited Luke 6:20 in full, as were as were all the other verses I quoted. I’ll take that apology now.
The notion of “I’m doing well, so God must be happy with me” is viewed around here (Catholic Spain) as dumb. Mostly because it seems to imply that such figures as Saint Francis of Assissi or any other mendicant were “bad people”, as their poverty vows preclude their “doing well”.
Is having money incompatible with being a good Christian? (completely different question). No, but it is still harder for someone who is preoccupied with getting richer to get through the gates of Heaven than for a camel to go through a needle’s eye (rephrasing by locals, I know the original says “a rich man”).
In Navarra we add that while God understands that not everybody has the guts to give everything away and dedicate his life to his brothers-in-God, one should always do as much for other as possible (giving money, time or a shoulder to lean on as available and fitting). “If you can give it, you must” is so ingrained in us that most people have trouble putting it into words - never into action. And damnit, you’re going to tell me I’m being silly… but I could find statistics about donation indexes (blood, organs and money) and I’m so used to “let your right hand not know what the left is doing” that I can’t bring myself to it! It feels like showing off, so if you want to find out, please use your own google-fu…
But I won’t because like an ongoing discussion with Bbileman, it’s useless.
It’s all over his teachings in the NT. Specifically
I never did. . I believe you are mistaken. {I’ll assume you’re *not * a liar}
You are quite right. chapter 12 is where his answer includes “44I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions” I’ve been saying its about stewardship of what we have. In this parable answer Jesus supports that.
My mistake. I shouldn’t stay up so late trying to continue the discussion.
It is indeed in
I quoted this before. Clearly in context these verses Jesus is answering Peters question by saying "the same is not asked of everybody because everybody is not given the same to be responsible for. This is also where he tells the story of the trustworthy servant who will be put in charge of all the masters possessions {verse 44} again indicating stewardship.
Right. I’m glad I made the mistake because chapter 14 relates.
look at verses 25 to 31. He is making a distinction between a disciple {as the apostles are who made a choice and commitment to follow him in person} and people who are just interested in his teachings. He tells two stories of people making sure they can do what needs to be done before they casually decide to be a disciple. I think this relates quite well to his response to the rich man who asks “what do I lack?” At first Jesus indicates that the young man only needs to follow the commandments to get eternal life. When he asks what else, Jesus then says give up everything. In both cases Jesus recognizes a distinction between those who are ready to follow him in person and make the total commitment and those who aren’t. He doesn’t condemn those who aren’t ready. He still advises them to heed his words.
You might make an argument that everyone who takes on the name Christian is claiming to be a disciple. I wouldn’t agree but I think its a valid argument. That’s where Luke 12:48 comes in. People can say I’m a Christian and be like the rich man who was following the commandments. Jesus didn’t condemn him. He knew he wasn’t ready for the full commitment. In Luke 14 he says “make sure you’re ready”
For one thing you have no idea how much effort I am making and are in no position to dole out judgements on all Christians everywhere. I see the spiritual journey as an ongoing thing. We don’t wake up one day deciding to be perfect. We decide to make an effort and hopefully we keep choosing to make an effort everyday. The journey is a personal thing between the individual and God. I have no interest in letting anyone else decide what God wants of me.
No I’m not. I’m arguing having wealth is okay if God is your priority and you see yourself as his steward over what he has given you charge over. {to whom more is given more is required} If you don’t see the difference between the two then we’re reduced to “does not” and “does so” I’m not interested in that
I have stated it. It’s right there in our posts. If you can’t get it by reading them it’s because you don’t want to.
I have tried to seriously consider yours. If you seriously don’t consider mine then you’ve certainly pissed away a lot of time arguing.
You are correct and I acknowledge my mistake concerning verse 20.
Since you are aware he was speaking directly to the twelve then you should know this quote doesn’t support your argument. It only supports what I’ve said repeatedly. The twelve made a decision to accept Jesus call and go with him. What was expected of them and those who thought they wanted to be like them, is not expected of everyone.
Apparently you will. As clear as it was that Jesus said do not store up treasure on earth, you continue to argue that it’s ok. As much as you think the bible is an imperfect record of Jesus’ teachings you think you can not only read what he said but infer his meaning as being contrary to what he said.
Specifically in what verses did Jesus say to put the inner journey first. What do you mean by “inner journey” anyway?
I’ll refresh your memory, but I still think you have your stories confused…
Jesus says what it takes to be a disciple, yes. He asks for a lot of those interested in eternal paradise, and indicates elsewhere that most will fall short. I see nothing in the speech of Jesus that indicates heaven is available for those just interested in his teachings.
You’re ignoring Jesus talk about how difficult it is for a rich man to get into heaven, the camel and the needle again. All I see coming from you is a torturing of the scriptures trying to make them say what you want, (that earthly riches are ok) just as any rich Christian do. Your “needle gait” reference only shows your readiness to accept any argument to support your desires.
I don’t see anything in Luke 12:48 that indicates that Jesus does not wish for everyone to follow his commandments. I could see it as Jesus wanting everyone to give all that they can, and those who have more would be able to give more. I don’t see any reason to believe he meant that those who have more can give more on a percentage basis and still live in the lap of luxury. Jesus did make a point to praise the widow who gave all she had over the rich who gave, monetarily more, of their abundance.
So you are arguing that rich people, because of their wealth, are tolerable disappointments to Jesus? Ok, I’ll buy that as possible.
I’ve got to say, of many things one can do in life, giving wealth away isn’t very difficult, certainly a lot easier than earning it. In fact I would argue that it is exceedingly easy, stupid perhaps, but easy. I could sell my house in a month, cash out my portfolio in a week and in a couple hours, at best, I’m sure I could easily give all the proceeds to the poor. Running a marathon, now that would be an effort.
And apparently this “anyone” includes Jesus.
I see the distinction you are making. I just don’t think that distinction is supported by the gospels.
I don’t see anywhere that Jesus says his commands to the disciples are not directly attributable to all. Much of what Jesus tells his disciples, he also tells to the multitudes on the Sermon on the Mount. By your same reasoning you could argue that what Jesus said to the multitudes does not apply to you either because he wasn’t talking directly to you, but taking that attitude sure saps Jesus’ teachings of any relevance to our lives whatsoever (not that that’s a bad idea).
Yes Yes and Yes, I am inferring meaning. I am interpreting the words of Jesus based on what he said as a whole within the NT. So are you. My interpretations are also influenced by other readings and a sense I get of what Jesus was about. You pull bits of select verses and declare this must be taken literally and then argue that your method is not interpretation. You may insist that is so {until you are blue in the face} but it simply cannot be. As I stated much earlier. Nobody can read the words of JC and say,“well here he means this and there he meant that and if you look at these two or three verses from different gospels together you see that he meant…” without interpreting them through their own experience, reasoning, experiences and biases. IMHO when you continue to insist that you don’t and then pull a line completely out of context to support your position it isn’t much different than Bibleman saying “God said it so I believe it” The technique is pretty similar.
John3:3 3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again {keeping in mind he said the kingdom is within}
5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
John 4:24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
John14:16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 14:26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 16: 12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Luke 9:25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? {priority}
The inner journey is looking within to our connection with the source and each other. Listening to the inner voice of that connection we grow as beings. That connection that Jesus referred to as the Holy Spirit leads us. Learning to listen and follow is part of the process.
Look at it again. I definitely did not say what you claimed I said. The principle applies to everyone. That is not the same thing as Jesus instructions to the Apostles. It’s a spiritual principle rather than about material possessions.
What do you think that passage means?
I believe Jesus wanted all people to follow the spiritual principles he taught. Not all are called to be apostles. He also realized many were not ready to understand fully. I believe he recognized that it is indeed a spiritual journey, so people were responsible to use what they had {spiritually not materially} correctly in order to
progress.
Mark 4 is a good example as he talks about the word, {the inner voice} growing as a seed. Also in this chapter he explains that he speaks in parables to others while explaining the principles to the disciples. He recognizes the process of growth when he tells the young rich man to simply obey the commandments at first. Ultimately heaven requires complete surrender to love and truth, but we are not condemned for being where we are on the journey.
So, not everybody is called to be an apostle and give up everything to travel the countryside preaching. We are to put the inner journey {worshiping in spirit and truth} as our number 1 priority.
James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.
Let’s say a good Christian has a successful business. He employees 100 people and provides benefits for them and their families. He also uses his wealth to help others in various ways and social programs. A soup kitchen, a scholarship fund for deserving financially challenged students. Will he serve his fellow man better by selling the factory and giving everything away to help the poor, or can he help the poor and his employees more by continuing to operate his business and and being a philanthropist?
IMO this would be the man of
Luke 16:9
I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
like this? Matthew 24:13
But he who endures to the end shall be saved.
If giving it all away is so east why do you suppose the rich man didn’t do it when Jesus offered him a way to perfection?
Cute but meaningless.
I know… Obviously your opinion and interpretation differs from mine.
We have both backed up our opinions with passages. You haven’t presented me with anything compelling to embrace your interpretation over my own, and I haven’t swayed you.
Not at all. Each person is called to worship in spirit and truth. Each person is also unique in their personal gifts. I’m a musician , not an apostle, doctor or carpenter. We are called to give our all spiritually. The material details of what giving our spiritual all means to each individual will vary.
I really don’t think it accurate for you to equivocate what I am doing with what you are doing. I am stating what is attributed to Jesus, and when I attribute meaning to what Jesus wrote, I am saying that meaning is in alignment with what is written. You on the contrary are attributing meaning that is often times entirely opposite with what is written or at the very least allows you to live with actions that are opposite of what was instructed. I think you are well aware of this and as such you maintain that I am taking things overly literal or some such truck. Also I get a sense of what’s attributed from Jesus throughout the entire NT also, and it is generally; blessed be the meek and the poor, not the rich and the powerful.
I pull lines completely out of context do I? Try looking in the mirror.
Funny, I don’t see Jesus mentioning to “put the inner journey first” in any of those verses. I don’t see mention of an inner journey anywhere, let alone to put it first. I always thought he taught us to love god first, or else.
So you’re not a Christian, but you believe in the Holy Spirit?
Keep telling yourself that.
What makes good practical sense and what was taught by Jesus, need not, and frequently are not, the same thing. You can argue with me that it’s stupid to give all your stuff to the poor and I will agree with you. However if the bible is any testament to the teachings of Jesus, then I don’t think he would agree.
Your quote is taken out of context, and in context describes a servant writing off debts his master was legally owed. Something that made the covetous Pharisees sneer. I would guess that if your business owner were donating all of his profits to charity and survive on an base subsistence income, then it might be ok, but I bet you don’t agree you should have to do that either.
Probably because he didn’t want to, or because he thought it would be stupid to do so.
I think you unwillingness to change is an indicator of your covetousness.
And I think your willingness to make personal remarks about other posters outside the Pit is going to get you in trouble.
Cosmosdan is discussing the text and his interpretation. You are free to disagree with that interpretation. At no point has he indicated his own wealth or any actions he has taken to acquire wealth. At this point, his comments are all in the theoretical. Sliding in a snide claim that his arguments are shaped by a sinful character flaw are unwarranted and not supported by his actual statements.