IOW, “I’m right, you’re wrong, and nothing you say will change my mind.” Sheesh.
I’m a little confused by this statement. Does this mean that a true Christian is not allowed to own anything? Not a watch? Not clothes? Not a pair of shoes?
Not I. Go fight with a biblical literalist. There are enough contradictory (not paradoxical) statements attributed to Jesus that it is clear that some of them had to have been metaphors or rhetorical devices. In order to have fun with this discussion, you have been putting your own spin on some of them. That’s your privelege, but I am still free to point out that you are imposing the interpretation you wish in order to make your points. That sort of thing is fun, but it doesn’t actually lead anywhere.
As to your comments regarding Porète, you initially claimed that the RCC condemned her among many others for embracing poverty without joining a religious order. You have now confirmed my statement that “poverty” was not the issue, but a whole range of views that the RCC found heretical. Your initial statement that that I challenged, that
is still not established, and is weaker in light of your evidence of the larger issues that the Free Spirits and the RCC battled over.
tomndebb
jmullaney
Joseph of Arimathea is noted as a wealthy man who was a disciple of Jesus.
Zacchaeus spoke of giving away half of his wealth, not all of it, (except as it may have been needed to repay those he had defrauded).
In Luke 14, Jesus is dining with a wealthy Pharisee. He certainly admonishes the man to treat the poor well, but at no point does he demand that the man give up his wealth–only that he use it well. (Which incident is immediately followed by Jesus’s command to “hate” one’s own family. If you wish to claim that there is no symbolic language in his teachings, you are welcome to that view.)
Mary, Martha, and Lazarus all give the appearance of being moderately well-off (although without any appearance of “wealth.”)
Philemon was at least wealthy enough to own a slave (for whom Paul did not even demand manumission).
Aquila and Priscilla, while not “wealthy,” were sufficiently well off to send funds to support Paul when he was not living and working with them. Paul never demanded that they give all their income to the poor.
I liked the part where he said that Christians should be poor by typing words on his expensive computer so that others who owned computers could read them while being unproductive at work.
I must have missed you somewhere. I don’t get what you are talking about here. I didn’t mean to imply that you were a bible literalist. A Catholic would, of course, claim salvation based, not on scripture, but on being a member of the Catholic Church – but I forget on what basis the RCC claims to have its salvation. Something to do with the strange idea that if I’m a good worker, the guy sitting at my desk in two thousand years will also be a good worker, IIRC.
It is what the Catholics teach. When I get the opportunity I will find a better reference.
I’m not sure what you mean. I mean, yes, IIRC, Porete did admit to missing mass on a few Sundays and not going to confession because of that. And the Inquisitor did manage to catch her up in that because she basically said she didn’t think it was that important. So if you are saying the real reason the RCC condemned her as a heretic was for missing church, well that is a point – but they very seem to be selective as to who they so condemn.
When I started this discussion I had no idea the RCC apparently goes to lengths to keep a secret their teachings on what they teach this heresy is. Nothing in the Catholic encyclopedia. Every other heresy is in there! They also have not, that I can find, publish on-line in English any encyclicals prior to this century. When I get a chance to get to a Catholic reading room, I’ll be able to get you more info. It is only tangental anyway.
“Joseph was a wealthy man who had been a disciple.”
Yesterday, I was a wealthy man who had been a disciple.
Judas was a betrayor who had been a disciple.
So?
He promised to give back four times over whatever he’d gotten through fraud. As he was a tax collector, notorious for fraud as their main source of income, I don’t think it is unreasonable to think that 12.5% of his wealth (or more) was gotten through fraud.
Um. Give? Give a banquet? Of course by giving a baquet you are giving away wealth. Jesus makes clear he’s not talking about a pot-luck, because he says a man doing so should give his banquet for the poor and not for his relatives. There is nothing inherently wrong with giving away food. Jesus was being closely watched at this little get together, sure, but I think it is in general bad form to insult your host, especially in front of his guests. Why? Well, for starters, when eating at a powerful host’s home he might just decide to have you killed.
Of course, after the ressurection a believer would no longer fear death by Jesus’s example – at which point such a good host would certaintly be repaid should he invite Christian guests for they would then surely not be afraid to teach him the way to eternal life, correct? Seems like a fair payment to me.
Well, in the context of what he just said, he seems to be saying when you give away your wealth, you might be tempted to just give it to your family, but he is again saying it is far better for you to give it to the poor, even though your family might view this as “hateful.”
And none of them are described as disciples, unless I missed something. Well, perhaps Mary, but she of the three is not described as well-off excepting she lived in her sister’s home.
You know, someday, someone on this thread is going to actually read 1st Timothy chapter 6, wherein, again I must point out, Paul says there is nothing wrong with serving a believer. And thus, there is nothing wrong with a believer having a servant. If a man asks you to go with him a mile, go with him two, right?
Not that I care particularily what Paul taught. Paul is just some guy.
Well, if you think that is the case, fine, I can’t find this scripture. If you are trying to justify your position based on your belief that Paul was a poor teacher, you aren’t going to get much of an argument from me. Paul could be the devil himself for all I care; call yourself a Paulist then if this man is so important to you.
Some more thoughts from this atheist (put here to test you believers):
I’m not sure the fact Jesus had dinner with a wealthy man means he thought wealth was acceptable.
Jesus also associated with adultresses, thieves, drunks and sinners of every stripe. Does this mean he approved their sins?
Remember, Jesus was chastised for associating with “publicans and sinners”. Does this mean he endorsed their behavior as well?
Also, I still have a hard time with the idea of making the assumption that certain of Jesus’s words were intended merely as “rhetorical devices”. Seems to me that this is another handy way to avoid inconvenient injuctions. Was it also a rhetorical device when he said “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” or “Love God and keep his commandments?”
How does one distinguish between doctrine and “rhetorical device?” And again I ask (because I still see no answer): if Christians cannot accept the words of Jesus as doctrine, upon what source of doctrine should they rely?
jmullaney, I’m afraid that you are beginning to look incoherent.
- You first said that Jesus and Paul demanded that everyone who wished to be saved be poor.
- You then said that in the fight with the Free Spirits, the specific charges of the RCC against them were that they accepted poverty without joining a religious order.
- When I (among others) pointed out that our view of scripture was that Jesus and Paul did not demand physical poverty, which I supported with the notion that Jesus and Paul knew wealthy people from whom they did not demand abject poverty, you demanded a citation.
I have used your link to point out that your statement that poverty was the reason for the RCC’s condemnation of the Free Spirits is incorrect.
I have provided the citations for people of whom Jesus and Paul did not demand abject poverty. (Your little sniping at Paul seems silly since you introduced his quotes to the discussion.)
Your statement that the RCC considers salvation to be an act of joining the RCC is also incorrect.
As I noted, above, this is probably fun to play the word games and make bold assertions without support, (claiming the RCC is hiding one of its heresies?), but it does not lead anywhere.
Also, Mark, the earliest of the gospels, does not refer to Joseph of Arimathe’a as being wealthy, or for that matter, being a disciple as such. Instead, Mark refers to him as “Joseph of Arimathe’a, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God…”
Sounds like Joseph was a powerful (not necessarily wealthy) man trying to cover his bases in case Jesus was the Christ.
Joseph was, in Mark’s words, “looking for the kingdom of God.” Does this make him an obedient disciple? If that were the case, why didn’t Mark just say so?
Well, the real problem with Mark and all those other guys was that they didn’t get Eric Sevareid or Daniel Schorr to jot down a commentary, explaining in 7,000 words what the authors had intended to say in 2,000. Now we look at statements taken out of context (because even with the context of the story, we don’t have the the firsthand accounts of how the first audience received it or understood it) and we get to wrangle over what this or that line “really” meant.
You also bring up a valid observation, spoke-, in your earlier post regarding our ability to pick and choose what to believe.
On the one point of a triangle is the literalist who believes that every single word is factually, historically correct and who will turn themselves inside out “proving” that there are no contradictions no matter what evidence is provided. On another point of the triangle are those who believe that the whole thing is a fairy tale (perhaps well-intentioned or edifying, perhaps merely delusional and silly). On the third point of the triangle are those who believe that what has been written is the best effort of a small group of men to present their understanding of the message that Jesus intended to convey.
This third point is the easiest to attack because it is, as you note, open to charges of picking and choosing. On the other hand, it fits best with my observation of how the world works. A person does not have to be a fan of Rashomon or a witness to a traffic accident to know that you cannot get complete agreement from any two people regarding any event that they have seen. And any one who has been involved in any sort of attempt to get out a “message” knows that the language used among the coordinating group is not identical to the message given to the staff which differs from the message given to the audience. This is not a mater of lying, it is a matter of communicating at the level that any specific group will understand. I will not claim that this puts the stamp of Truth on this approach. It does reassure me that the way I view the creation of scripture corresponds to how I see real life work.
How does one know what was “really” meant in that case? Examine the other parts of scripture that touch on the same issues; see how the earliest Church Fathers commented on those passages of scripture; try to understand (to our limited capability) what the statements might mean in the context of the culture in which they were spoken.
Jesus did say that. Paul may not have always taught perfectly at all times and all places (maybe he hit his head a little hard falling off that horse) and I’m willing to concede that to you.
If you’d care to give a cite refuting that, by all means find one. You know I don’t have a cite affirming it, and I apologize, but let’s give this one a rest until one of us has something to add, ok?
Is this Paul guy part of the Trinity now? I should have paid more attention in this thread. I have no idea when Paul became transubstantiated into a divine and perfect being – was that back on page one?
I merely requested a cite. As spoke said, Jesus spent a lot of time with sinners so I don’t feel your argument is very convincing. As for Paul, for all we know a lot of the people you mentioned were squatters or tentmakers. But it is just Paul so I don’t think your argument is very important. It is a novel way of trying to ignore Christ’s teachings, to cite Paul in such a manner and I will try to be more wary of it.
OK. Good for you! Jesus himself said not to cast pearls before swine, so I’m sure he took his own advice from time to time. That cetaintly does not negate what Jesus did in fact teach those who wished to follow him, have eternal life, etc., does it? I think you are beginning to look a little incoherent ;).
Unlikely. I think someone brought up “love of money” out of context, and I corrected them.
Tom,
I would agree that Rashomon is an apt analogy for the process of trying to piece together what Jesus taught.
We have four gospels: four different accounts of the life of Jesus. How do we reconcile them? In much the same way that we would reconcile the stories of four different witnesses to an automobile accident (to borrow your other metaphor). We look for common points in the stories. If all four witnesses to an automobile collision agree on a detail, a jury is justified in regarding that detail as fact.
Similarly, if all four gospels agree on a point of doctine, it would seem reasonable to infer that the doctrine must have been a true point of emphasis for Jesus.
The point I am making is that all four gospels report Jesus’s admonishment to his followers to lead lives of poverty. Can we not agree that he did indeed say this?
If we agree that he said it, we then arrive at the question of whether he intended it as doctrine, or was merely using it as a “rhetorical device.” In the case of the poverty requirement, I am not sure I can agree with you that he was only speaking rhetorically. He certainly seems to have lived a life of poverty himself, as did his apostles (at least during his lifetime). Do those facts not provide some of the “context” for interpreting his words?
Furthermore, the admonishment regarding poverty doesn’t appear in a single isolated passage. Jesus made the same point several times, in different contexts and using different words. That also strikes me as significant. It would seem to me to carry the admonishment past the point of being a rhetorical device, and into the realm of doctrine.
My take, anyway. But then, I think both Jesus and his followers thought that the earth was so near to ending that material possessions were an irrelevancy.
spoke-
I don’t think that there is any question that Jesus taught that poverty helps a person come closer to God. He certainly taught that getting caught up in the material wealth of the world interfered with our ability to know God.
I guess the difference that I see in our interpretations would be whether he was demanding that only in poverty could one one come to God. I would think that he was holding out the example of poverty as the ideal state from which a person could most easily know God.
He did not reject people of wealth. In the case of Joseph of Arimathea we have a man who was seen as a good person, who despite his wealth and his position in the world was a disciple, and the Gospels give no indication that he gave away his wealth or that there was any censure of him for his wealth. In the case of the young rich man who came to Jesus, the instruction to give away his possessions is the last thing that Jesus asks of him, in order that the young man may do more, it is not the requirement that Jesus lays on him before he will even talk to him.
In the overall context, I see Jesus teaching love and compassion and faith to all people, then pointing out that if they really want to go the full measure, they will walk away from the potential trap of worldly possessions. But he does not seem (to me) to claim that a person cannot love or believe or find salvation unless that person lives in abject poverty.
Again, I’m not an expect in the verb tenses of ancient greek, but working from the English translation:
“Joseph was a rich man who had been a disciple.”
Now, the bible is written in the past tense, so why doesn’t it say:
“Joseph was a rich man who was a disciple”?
The text seems to be implicitly giving the opposite indictation which you are trying to infer. It seems to be saying “he had been” a disciple, which to me implies he was no longer a disciple at that time. What characteristics are we given about Joseph that might explain why he is no longer a disciple? Well, all we are told is that he is a rich man.
(Rich? Where does it say that he was rich?)
Which is sort of like saying you found your car keys in the last place you looked. What you are trying to imply, of course, that this was not implicit in the first thing Jesus asks of man, that he keep the commandments. The man then claims that he’s kept all the commandments since his youth. Jesus then basically instructs the man to keep the tenth commandment also.
You have to keep the commandments to enter into life. If you are a Christian, you should keep the commandments as Jesus taught them. Obviously, if this man had not desired anyone else’s property “since his youth” as he claimed he would not have much, would he?
(Again, “abject” is probably the wrong word.)
So, your premise is that Jesus lied to the poor guy, or at the very best deliberately misled him into thinking getting rid of his possessions was a requirement for salvation. I guess I just have a hard time believing Jesus could be so cruel.
Where do you get that idea?
Mark 13:30- Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
Mark 9:1- And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
jmullaney, do you twist every statement you read to mean something you need it to?
Your comments on Joseph of Arimathea are simply wild speculation.
At the time of the death of Jesus, Joseph was still rich and still a disciple of Jesus. Any other reading is simply wrong.
jmullaney (referring to the young man in Mt 19):
Try in the gospel:
Throwing out claims that Jesus was ordering him to not covet other people’s goods when he already “had great possessions” is silly. Your following quote is absurd.
He could not possibly been born to a wealthy family? He could not possibly have made a good investment in the course of his normal business that had brought him a good return? You are assrting that the only way to have possessions is to have coveted someone else’s possessions? Go find out what covet truly means. I’m afraid that your view of reality does not match anyone else’s view of reality. To participate in a discussion, it helps to use the same words as everyone else in the same way that they use them, otherwise you and Humpty Dumpty can have a real glory, but you can’t communicate with the rest of us.
In this story, Jesus is offering the young man with many possessions the opportunity to go beyond what is “required” when He says to give up his possessions. This is a pretty clear indication that the “minimum requirements” are less stringent.
No, oh ye of the twisted phrase. I maintain that while Jesus allows that the young man can be saved without giving up his possessions, Jesus recognized that the young man felt a calling to go beyond that and told him what that required–the higher calling of separating himself from worldly possessions.
Being brought up in a Seminary, and after studied theology, Latin and Greek for many years, the idea of the Vatican giving up its’ worldly possessions seemed appealing, especially during the latter part of my tenure there; what fueled my thoughts on this was the plethora of articles that appeared in newspapers alleging that Priests’ and s’ orders were replete with money, ungiving to charities and guilty of physical and emotional violence with the students subjected to their teachings.
My original posting dealt with the Catholic church but the more idead were expounded the more I found I should have broadened my hypothesis included all religious institions on this Earth. Some very able comments were in that regard that proved eye-opening to me.
What really impressed me, and continues to, is the quality, depth and intelligence of arguments advanced with concise and to-the-point bible quotes centering around Jesus’ teaching concerning poverty. I thought I knew my bible until I read your posts.
All this to say that I will remain a fervent reader of this thread and further my education and knowledge of the Bible and its’ precepts through your comments.
Jesus said “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Would it even be possible to live up to that precept and not be poor? I mean, if I truly love my neighbor as much as I love myself, that means I will be spending all of my extra cash to make sure everyone around me is properly fed, clothed, and cared for, won’t I? (I wouldn’t allow myself to be hungry or cold. How can I allow my neighbor to exist in this condition?)
OK, so I had the day off on Friday. I took the rail to the subway to the local Catholic university, found the main library, found the theology library, and managed to get a full ten minutes of research in before the library closed bright and early at 4:30. Since it is only open during the week I won’t be able to make it back there for a while but I did manage to find a few things out.
- Part of the confusion we’ve been having over the Free Spirit heresy is that, though Porete was condemned in 1310, this wasn’t declared a heresy until 1312, at the Council of Vienne.
- Also condemned at this same Council were the Spiritual Franciscans, because they maintained the original rule of poverty prescibed by Saint Francis himself. (Somehow, Francis is still a saint, even though his teachings are here condemned as heretical). Four or five of those who followed the Rule got the typical punishment for heresy which I won’t go into. The Church eventually reversed this condemnation for religious in 1415, but “the Spirituals ceased to be a faction of importance in the order after 1325.” I see no evidence that the condemnation of laity for being poor has been overturned.
- Apparently, Pope Clement was nuts – just look at one of his encyclicals from the Council. He also essentially decided to tax the whole world which kind of shows you where his heart was.
That is about the best I can do for web links to make my case the the Free Spirits were condemned for being poor. Not that the victors don’t write the history books – the Templars were supposedly condemned for holding secret satanic rites if you believe that. Anyway, if you wish to learn more you should go to your own local library. Why 14th century history isn’t up in full on the web is a mystery to me ;).
I might have asked you the same question.
Fine. But since when is a disciple above his teacher? Jesus said this was not possible.
If he knew everything he wouldn’t need to be a pupil anymore. And I’m the silly one!
He had possessions which he held in greater esteem than the teachings of God. So, yes, you are right, he was rich.
Look, if someone offers you something, and you don’t want it, don’t take it. You don’t invest unless you want a return.
Way ahead of you. The word in the Ten Commandments can mean love/desire/covet.
To quote cmkeller, our resident expert in ancient Hebrew:
God’s inordinant desire for Israel? C’mon. I got you beat on this point hands down.
:rolleyes: Do you twist every statement you read to mean something you need it to? Does the man lack something or does he not? If you say there are some lesser requirements that are sufficient you are calling Jesus a liar.
Well, you seem to have crows in your ears and I don’t care to plow the rock any further. Wishing the Gospel says that isn’t going to make it true.
Spoke – I don’t think Mark 13:30 the meaning of “this generation” is exactly that of the current generation of believers. Yes, the Temple was destroyed as he said, but, as he eludes to the fig tree in the previous sentence, I think he might mean, really, the church of believers wouldn’t be completely destroyed. Mark 9:1 is a little bit easier – as the Kingdom of God was established and came into power, and is still so to this day. Not the heyday of the 13th century, of course, but not too shabby IMHO.
spoke wrote:
You hit the nail on the head here. By being poor yourself, you eliminate the basic problem of giving to the poor – how much should you give? When someone spanges me, shouldn’t I, were I being honest, admit that I can actually spare quite a bit of change all things considered? If you “give to those who ask of you”, and they ask you for everything, aren’t you basically screwed? But when you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. I guess I could work 80 hours a week in order to give that much more to the poor, but Christ in his wisdom frees the wise person from such a ridiculous rat race – otherwise, you are basically a slave to those who are poor, which I maintain wasn’t what Jesus had in mind.