• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Giving up everything you own

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
Just had an epiphany. What if...

What if Jesus really meant that people should abandon their current attitudes and ways of doing things by replacing the old ways with faith in the god within themselves? With this new approach, this fresh start, they might just find new inspirations to enact positive change, thus improving their lot in life and in the world around them due to a positive ripple effects? @Vouthon @Windwalker

Well, the verse is certainly not limited to mere possession of tangible property. As I explained to both @Sunstone and @It Aint Necessarily So the Gospel of Matthew interprets this command as referring to 'poverty of spirit,' a mental attitude or state of mind; whereas the more socially-conscious Gospel of Luke goes for the literal, materialist application.

Both perspectives are, therefore, scriptural and binding for Christians: which is why it has resulted in both mysticism and social activism, throughout the church's history. It really depends upon which perspective you place the greater emphasis upon.

Jesus did say, to connect it with your interpretation, that "no man puts new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish" (Luke 5:36). This is a commonsense, folk piece of wisdom which, in the words of one prominent New Testament scholar: "pits Jesus's own, new way against the old way of the Pharisees and their scribes." (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, Eerdmans, 1997).

To join the Jesus movement, you had to be baptized in water and arise as a "new person", putting behind old ways of thinking - if I may reference another book of the New Testament:

You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its cravings, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4: 22-24)​

So, I definitely think your interpretation has merit and is part of the equation - although there's more to it, namely the importance placed upon detachment/non-attachment (as in Buddhism and other Dharmic religions) plus the explicit social dimension in relation to the poor and deprived members of society.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Just had an epiphany. What if...

What if Jesus really meant that people should abandon their current attitudes and ways of doing things by replacing the old ways with faith in the god within themselves? With this new approach, this fresh start, they might just find new inspirations to enact positive change, thus improving their lot in life and in the world around them due to a positive ripple effects? @Vouthon @Windwalker
What I was think was like this, but a little more on the lines of Buddhist teachings, that clinging creates suffering. Do we own our possessions, or do our possessions own us? If we define ourselves by the objects in our lives, be that our wonderful personalities, our good looks and charming wits, our social status, the admiring eyes of other who make us feel like we are something special, the mountain of our wealth as a symbol of our great successes, and so forth, then indeed, we are not a disciple of Jesus. "You already have your reward," Jesus might quip! :)

That "God within" is found in self-surrender. The true Self is found by emptying ourselves of all these things we look to to define our small s self. The ego is like that camel which cannot fit through the eye of the needle, as Jesus pointed out to the rich man attached to his wealth, unwilling to let go of seeking to find truth and meaning in these things prone to corruption, theft, and decay. All his teachings point to seeking your treasure in heaven, where moth and rust do not corrupt. In other words, the problem isn't these things, it's how we turn to them, look to them, and to use the Buddhist term, cling to them. It is in sacrificing our clinging, that we find we are not a prisoner to them.

Now, as far as Luke talking about the early church taking this injunction very literally, while I do see the value of a socialist structure in the way described, as we can see the extreme expressions of capitalism and wealth inequality is in fact a human disease on earth, it may also be like those who took other teachings of Jesus in similar vein such as, "those who lay down their lives for my sake will take them up again," and they happily put themselves in front of lions to be eaten alive as a quick pass on to God.

I'll say this about that, they didn't get it. That took it literally. It was above their heads. And what would you expect? People who are not yet ready for deeper meanings to teaching, become fanatics, taking shortcuts to nirvana, just follow this guru, jump up and down on one foot, and heaven awaits! And then these people teach others, and the blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch, as Jesus also taught about these unenlightened spiritual teachers.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions

IMHO. This means to give up the idea that you own anything.
Advaitha instructs: Don't even say "I want God"
a) Cross the "I", because that's only ego
b) Cross the "want", because that's desire
Result = God
 
Last edited:

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Jesus plainly stated:


Luke 14:33: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

"Ouch!" Pretty blunt, eh? Note how he stipulates: "none of you", nobody. Nada. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it still gets the message across in bold lettering.

Jesus' statement presupposes a dichotomy between what one has for usage but does not own (real estate, movable goods, money) and that which truly belongs to the disciple, “the true riches” (Luke 16:11), the everlasting wealth of the grace of God.

In light of the kingdom of God, possessions become elachistos (Luke 16:10), they belong to the passing age. Later in the same gospel account, Jesus contends that worldly assets are "the belongings of another" (Luke 16:12), clearly implying that we do not properly 'own' any private property in the absolute sense, because we are really 'stewards' of goods which, in point of fact, belonged originally to God and by his will everyone who lives on earth prior to our appropriation.

In chapter 16, Jesus explains this teaching by means of his 'Parable of the Dishonest Steward'. This involves a steward, or manager, who misappropriates and squanders his master's wealth for which reason he is threatened with redundancy. The meaning is rather stark: Jesus is telling his listeners that we are all, each one of us, 'dishonest stewards' appropriating to ourselves and squandering goods which do not properly belong to us but to God, who intends for them to be used for the benefit of all and especially the underprivileged.

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:


The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)


Can we truly call ourselves disciples of Jesus when most of us fail to come anywhere near the rigorous demands of this high ideal, especially in today's ultra-consumerist, globalized, economically competitive society?

Anyone looking to give their stuff away, especially money, drop me a pm. :)
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I totally understand where your coming from.

The admonition to renounce one's possessions is about looking at one's use of goods and land in a different way, from that which is conventionally the case. Jesus also referred to it in Matthew 5:3 as being "poor in spirit". The question is this: do we view property - realty, chattel, whatever - beyond what we truly need to survive as an "absolute", unconditioned personal right without any concomitant social obligations to others?

Jesus and the traditional doctrine of the Church gives an affirmative "no". The fact that we have income, corporation and in some countries land value taxation also indicates that only the most extreme kind of libertarian capitalists today would see property in this absolute way. But even those of us who don't, and who gladly pay our taxes to be used for the public good, can still fall victim to selfish use of our personal wealth.

One part of it, is about living without being inordinately attached to material objects. This is the "spiritual" or "mystical" dimension emphasized by the Gospel of Matthew. It's similar to the Buddhist concept of non-attachment.

The other element, is the one stressed by Luke 6:2 and in the verse we are discussing, which has to do with an actual social issue about the hoarding of goods and resources, as reflected in the communitarian church economics reflected in Acts 2:44-45 where the early believers "had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need."

Behind all of this lies a theological concept which regards the goods of the earth as destined for the succour humankind as a whole, rather than just for privileged individuals. See:


voluntaryist.com - Voluntaryism and Extreme Necessity

This theme was elaborated during the later Middle Ages when the principle of extreme necessity became a common doctrine among medieval theologians and canon lawyers.

The principle stated that a person in extreme necessity may rightfully take the property of other people to sustain his life. This principle is the most radical formulation of the medieval belief that God had bestowed the earth upon all mankind for its sustenance. [6] This conclusion led to two co-ordinate positions:


[T]he first held that people in extreme necessity might rightfully take what they needed to survive, and that their taking such goods had nothing of the nature of theft; and the second, held that every person has the obligation to sustain the life of other people once his own needs have been met. [7] Gratian’s DECRETUM, a famous medieval tome compiled about 1140 AD, also expounded the view that the fruits of the earth belonged to all mankind. All things are common, that is, to be shared in time of necessity with those in want. … [W]e should retain for ourselves only necessities and distribute what is left to our neighbors in need. [8]
The decretists saw no contradiction in maintaining the right to private property, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the poor to sustain their lives by taking from the wealthy. They recognized the right to private property, but the right of accumulation only extended as far as satisfying one’s basic needs. The man who accumulated goods beyond what he needed to live in a decent and fitting fashion according to his status had no [absolute] right to his wealth


Jesus often employed shocking hyperbole to get his listeners to re-arrange their priorities.

The statement regarding "hating one's family", is obviously not intended to contradict the earlier command in the same gospel to love even our "enemies". It should be understood in the context of the ancient, patriarchal family unit: which was a mechanism of tribalistic oppression of individuals and exclusion of compassion for the rest of humanity (i.e. nepotism, only caring about one's genetic relatives), in many cases; as opposed to the cozy, nurturing societal unit we know today.

Larry Siedentop, Emeritus Fellow of Keble College, Oxford and former Faculty Lecturer in Political Thought at the University of Oxford, explained this as follows:


The paterfamilias was originally both the family’s magistrate and high priest, with his wife, daughters and younger sons having a radically inferior status.

Inequality remained the hallmark of the ancient patriarchal family. “Society” was understood as an association of families rather than of individuals.

It was the Christian movement that began to challenge this understanding. Pauline belief in the equality of souls in the eyes of God – the discovery of human freedom and its potential – created a point of view that would transform the meaning of “society”.

This began to undercut traditional inequalities of status. It was nothing short of a moral revolution, and it laid the foundation for the social revolution that followed. The individual gradually displaced the family, tribe or caste as the basis of social organisation.

This wasn't an ethical way to structure society. The paterfamilias model of the family had to die. I agree with Jesus.

He was telling his disciples to unburden themselves from this kind of environment and not allow it to restrict them from living a morally and socially upstanding life, beyond narrow tribalistic communities - so that people could see all human beings as members of their family and not merely their genetic relations:


Matthew 12:50 (NRSV)

"50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”


Jesus deliberately wanted to shock people, so you have responded appropriately.

Yes, Jesus wanted to undermine the ancient, patriarchal family and replace it with a more globalist ethic - namely the one enunciated in Paul's letter to the Galatians:


Galatians 3:28 (NRSV)

28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.


Is that really such a bad thing? To act like the Good Samaritan in the Parable, rather than a cliquey-narrow-minded nepotistic family unit that treats outsiders with suspicion?

It's about moral universalism, in reality, and its the reason why Christians have the habit of calling each other "brother" and "sister" even though we aren't related by lineage or DNA (except distantly).

The words say, "So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions." If that's not what they mean, why speak (or write) them if it means something else that almost nobody will glean from them? If that's not what the words mean, it seems irresponsible to me to write them given that they would surely be taken literally in most cases.

The other scriptures you cited don't change the meaning of the one in question.

It's my opinion that if one approaches the Bible with the conviction that it is divine in nature and therefore its words must be wise, that is what one will see. Words that appear otherwise will be transformed in meaning to something else.

Absent such a faith based confirmation bias, the worlds simply mean what they say. There is no reason to believe that they were not meant literally - no sign that they weren't.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Staff member
Premium Member
The words say, "So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions." If that's not what they mean, why speak (or write) them if it means something else that almost nobody will glean from them? If that's not what the words mean, it seems irresponsible to me to write them given that they would surely be taken literally in most cases.

Have I denied that the early church mandated a primitive form of socialism (even if voluntaristic and non-state based)?

Quite the contrary, I've demonstrated from the start of this thread that, while the verse in question did not refer solely to physical possessions (you can possess, or cling, to outmoded ways of thought and intangible things as well), the early church understood this as an injunction to relinquish private ownership of property in favour of a communalized ecclesiastical ownership dependent upon need.

Church doctrine in later years, while adapting it pragmatically to fit changed circumstances and prevailing social structures, retained this fundamental idea in its natural law doctrine through preaching that in time of grave need, all property becomes common again; such that if the poor succour their needs from the superabundance of the rich, it isn't considered to be the sin of theft because its owed to them by divine law.

The church has always, therefore, denied that private property is an absolute, unconditional right.

I don't see where I'm contradicting myself here. :confused:

One of the main reasons I created this thread in the first place was precisely to make the point that this scriptural verse sets a colossally high standard which we Christians cannot ignore but must grapple with.

The other scriptures you cited don't change the meaning of the one in question.

No, but they do significantly deepen and broaden it.

Nobody reads any portion of a text in isolation from the rest of it.

To understand what Luke is communicating in his gospel, you need to interpret it in its entirety. Wouldn't you agree?

In terms of the "family-hating" verse, however, everything I told you above is derived from New Testament scholarship by the likes of Marcus Borg, Larry Siedentop, Walter Wink and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (of Harvard Divinity school), among many others. There's research to back up my claims.

His words were directed against the patriarchal family unit of the ancient world. This is made clear if you consider it in the context of other verses.

Jesus is reported to have said:


" And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven...The greatest among you will be your servant. All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted." (Matthew 23:9, 10-12).​


This text from the Gospel of Mark is especially instructive:

Jesus said, “ Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields" (Mark 10:29-30)​


A careful exegete will notice that the second half of the sentence omits "fathers" - mentioned in the first segment as one of the things his disciples must abandon for the kingdom - from the new family of the church. Consider the earlier passage I quoted in my previous reply: "For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.(Matthew 12:50).

Again, no "fathers". Only brothers, sisters and mothers in Jesus' new community. The continual omission is for a reason.

The omission is significant: fathers “represent patriarchy, the old society in which the man alone ruled and decided. In the new family of Jesus into which the disciples are to grow there can no longer be anyone who dominates others.” (Gerhard Lohfink 2014). In their analysis of Mark 10:29–30, Osiek and Balch conclude, “The old family included a patriarchal father; the new one does not, since God is the only Father.” Elisabeth Fiorenza says that, in the answer of Jesus, “fathers” are among those to be left behind; “fathers” are not included in the new kinship to which the disciples aspire. For Fiorenza this is an implicit rejection of the power and status of all patriarchal structures in the messianic community.

This, of course, fits in perfectly with the social ethic outlined elsewhere, in which all hierarchical relationships are to be transcended in a spirit of mutual service and equality of status.

The ancient family was an obstacle to the realization of this aim. The family unit he was criticizing is not the modern, nurturing nuclear family but the ancient, patriarchal, enclosed and nepotistic tribal unit.

He wanted to break it up and scholars universally recognize that this was a socially subversive doctrine which went completely against conventional Graeco-Roman norms and values, or indeed Jewish ones in the Torah. Deliberately so.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Jesus plainly stated:


Luke 14:33: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

"Ouch!" Pretty blunt, eh? Note how he stipulates: "none of you", nobody. Nada. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it still gets the message across in bold lettering.

Jesus' statement presupposes a dichotomy between what one has for usage but does not own (real estate, movable goods, money) and that which truly belongs to the disciple, “the true riches” (Luke 16:11), the everlasting wealth of the grace of God.

In light of the kingdom of God, possessions become elachistos (Luke 16:10), they belong to the passing age. Later in the same gospel account, Jesus contends that worldly assets are "the belongings of another" (Luke 16:12), clearly implying that we do not properly 'own' any private property in the absolute sense, because we are really 'stewards' of goods which, in point of fact, belonged originally to God and by his will everyone who lives on earth prior to our appropriation.

In chapter 16, Jesus explains this teaching by means of his 'Parable of the Dishonest Steward'. This involves a steward, or manager, who misappropriates and squanders his master's wealth for which reason he is threatened with redundancy. The meaning is rather stark: Jesus is telling his listeners that we are all, each one of us, 'dishonest stewards' appropriating to ourselves and squandering goods which do not properly belong to us but to God, who intends for them to be used for the benefit of all and especially the underprivileged.

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:


The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)


Can we truly call ourselves disciples of Jesus when most of us fail to come anywhere near the rigorous demands of this high ideal, especially in today's ultra-consumerist, globalized, economically competitive society?

Do you believe the above?
If so, what have you done about it?

Although I am a minimalist I don't give Luke's gospel full credit, although I accept what he copied from G-Mark, and so I don't believe that Jesus meant what you are proposing, I think he meant that his followers had to ditch all possessions in order to be free enough to make a combined stand against the corrupt, greedy, hypocritical, quisling priesthood for the return of ALL the OT laws except for the sacrificial laws. He didn't have me in mind.............. but I do accept that the less you have so the more free that you are. :)
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Jesus plainly stated:


Luke 14:33: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

"Ouch!" Pretty blunt, eh? Note how he stipulates: "none of you", nobody. Nada. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it still gets the message across in bold lettering.

Jesus' statement presupposes a dichotomy between what one has for usage but does not own (real estate, movable goods, money) and that which truly belongs to the disciple, “the true riches” (Luke 16:11), the everlasting wealth of the grace of God.

In light of the kingdom of God, possessions become elachistos (Luke 16:10), they belong to the passing age. Later in the same gospel account, Jesus contends that worldly assets are "the belongings of another" (Luke 16:12), clearly implying that we do not properly 'own' any private property in the absolute sense, because we are really 'stewards' of goods which, in point of fact, belonged originally to God and by his will everyone who lives on earth prior to our appropriation.

In chapter 16, Jesus explains this teaching by means of his 'Parable of the Dishonest Steward'. This involves a steward, or manager, who misappropriates and squanders his master's wealth for which reason he is threatened with redundancy. The meaning is rather stark: Jesus is telling his listeners that we are all, each one of us, 'dishonest stewards' appropriating to ourselves and squandering goods which do not properly belong to us but to God, who intends for them to be used for the benefit of all and especially the underprivileged.

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:


The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)


Can we truly call ourselves disciples of Jesus when most of us fail to come anywhere near the rigorous demands of this high ideal, especially in today's ultra-consumerist, globalized, economically competitive society?
You didn´t share the English translation you were using for your quotation from Luke. There is a vast difference between ¨give up¨ and ¨forsake¨
 

Zindik

New Member
Muslim Tsalaf saying "Everything belong to Aallah SWT only , we do not have everything of our own ."

That's that .
 

RESOLUTION

Active Member
Jesus plainly stated:


Luke 14:33: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

"Ouch!" Pretty blunt, eh? Note how he stipulates: "none of you", nobody. Nada. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it still gets the message across in bold lettering.

Jesus' statement presupposes a dichotomy between what one has for usage but does not own (real estate, movable goods, money) and that which truly belongs to the disciple, “the true riches” (Luke 16:11), the everlasting wealth of the grace of God.

In light of the kingdom of God, possessions become elachistos (Luke 16:10), they belong to the passing age. Later in the same gospel account, Jesus contends that worldly assets are "the belongings of another" (Luke 16:12), clearly implying that we do not properly 'own' any private property in the absolute sense, because we are really 'stewards' of goods which, in point of fact, belonged originally to God and by his will everyone who lives on earth prior to our appropriation.

In chapter 16, Jesus explains this teaching by means of his 'Parable of the Dishonest Steward'. This involves a steward, or manager, who misappropriates and squanders his master's wealth for which reason he is threatened with redundancy. The meaning is rather stark: Jesus is telling his listeners that we are all, each one of us, 'dishonest stewards' appropriating to ourselves and squandering goods which do not properly belong to us but to God, who intends for them to be used for the benefit of all and especially the underprivileged.

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:


The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)


Can we truly call ourselves disciples of Jesus when most of us fail to come anywhere near the rigorous demands of this high ideal, especially in today's ultra-consumerist, globalized, economically competitive society?
Luke 14:33 King James Version (KJV)
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

To be honest, just what did they have to forsake? Following Christ needs to be more important than anything you possess or own. I am not sure why the material automatically become the sense of what Christ is saying. Surely the way of life and all you all dear no longer takes pride of place and possession?
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Jesus plainly stated:


Luke 14:33: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

"Ouch!" Pretty blunt, eh? Note how he stipulates: "none of you", nobody. Nada. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it still gets the message across in bold lettering.

Jesus' statement presupposes a dichotomy between what one has for usage but does not own (real estate, movable goods, money) and that which truly belongs to the disciple, “the true riches” (Luke 16:11), the everlasting wealth of the grace of God.

In light of the kingdom of God, possessions become elachistos (Luke 16:10), they belong to the passing age. Later in the same gospel account, Jesus contends that worldly assets are "the belongings of another" (Luke 16:12), clearly implying that we do not properly 'own' any private property in the absolute sense, because we are really 'stewards' of goods which, in point of fact, belonged originally to God and by his will everyone who lives on earth prior to our appropriation.

In chapter 16, Jesus explains this teaching by means of his 'Parable of the Dishonest Steward'. This involves a steward, or manager, who misappropriates and squanders his master's wealth for which reason he is threatened with redundancy. The meaning is rather stark: Jesus is telling his listeners that we are all, each one of us, 'dishonest stewards' appropriating to ourselves and squandering goods which do not properly belong to us but to God, who intends for them to be used for the benefit of all and especially the underprivileged.

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:


The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)


Can we truly call ourselves disciples of Jesus when most of us fail to come anywhere near the rigorous demands of this high ideal, especially in today's ultra-consumerist, globalized, economically competitive society?

communalism was being practiced by the native americans.

hutterites, mennonites, and the amish practice it as well


Christian communism - Wikipedia
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
....plus the explicit social dimension in relation to the poor and deprived members of society.
The "poor and deprived" part is greatly over-played in "Christian" circles, many of which are essentially communist, but masquerade under the Christian label. In ancient Israel, a theocracy had been established, and everyone was bound by a law tending to promote mutual societal welfare and the honor of God, if not salvation itself. It was permissible to see the poor as being part of that theocracy.

In this day and age, there is no theocracy. The "poor" are not part of any theocracy. Indeed there have been many cases of the unsaved poor exploiting charity, defauding the state of welfare payments, abusing, even killing their benefactors. Many are poor through sloth, immorality and criminality, or being obese.

Many so-termed poor are organized into criminal fraternities, gangs, sub-cultures, and whom despise other members of society.

There can be no connection between Jesus command to "forsake all" and handing over cents or dollars to such unbelievers. It is clear that Christian charity should be largely determined by the faith of the recipient.

An interesting point lies in Matt 19;27.

27“Look, Peter replied, “we have left everything to follow You. What then will there be for us?”

Yet after Christ had been crucified, Peter went back to his home, and his fishing boats, and his possessions. He may have "forsaken" them to follow Christ, but he did not make himself destitute.

Thus the interpretation is putting Christ first, which does not require giving up possessions that are essential for life, welfare & work, which would be tantamount to suicide, and might even be a cause of sin. I think always of a person I once knew a long time ago who frankly did not have the relevant level of understanding to be an evangelist, and who gave up his job to sponge off others, (i.e. presuming to "forsake all"), whilst teaching some bizarre cultic-like things. Christianity is not a cult. Cultism is never honoring to God. If you aren't extremely proficient in theology and learning, there is no call to give up one's day job.
 
Last edited:

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Jesus plainly stated:


Luke 14:33: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

"Ouch!" Pretty blunt, eh? Note how he stipulates: "none of you", nobody. Nada. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it still gets the message across in bold lettering.

Jesus' statement presupposes a dichotomy between what one has for usage but does not own (real estate, movable goods, money) and that which truly belongs to the disciple, “the true riches” (Luke 16:11), the everlasting wealth of the grace of God.

In light of the kingdom of God, possessions become elachistos (Luke 16:10), they belong to the passing age. Later in the same gospel account, Jesus contends that worldly assets are "the belongings of another" (Luke 16:12), clearly implying that we do not properly 'own' any private property in the absolute sense, because we are really 'stewards' of goods which, in point of fact, belonged originally to God and by his will everyone who lives on earth prior to our appropriation.

In chapter 16, Jesus explains this teaching by means of his 'Parable of the Dishonest Steward'. This involves a steward, or manager, who misappropriates and squanders his master's wealth for which reason he is threatened with redundancy. The meaning is rather stark: Jesus is telling his listeners that we are all, each one of us, 'dishonest stewards' appropriating to ourselves and squandering goods which do not properly belong to us but to God, who intends for them to be used for the benefit of all and especially the underprivileged.

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:


The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)


Can we truly call ourselves disciples of Jesus when most of us fail to come anywhere near the rigorous demands of this high ideal, especially in today's ultra-consumerist, globalized, economically competitive society?

What your doing is taking what Jesus said out of context.

Jesus said --"So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsake not all that he has, he cannot be my disciple" Luke 14:33

You actually believe that Jesus wants people to give up all that they have.

What Jesus Truely wants is a person's commitment to him.
Jesus wants to see what is more important to you, does what ever you have is it more important to you, Than your love for him.

Had you read Verses 34 & 35, they would explain verse 33.

Verse 34--"Salt is good, but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned"

Therefore if you gained the whole world, but lost your soul in the process, What did you gain, Therefore if you cannot forsake the things of the world, For your love of Jesus.
How much would you forsake for your child ?
Does your love for your child mean more to you, than what you gain of worldly things ?

Verse 35--"It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill, but men cast it out,
He that has ears to hear, let him hear"

Do you hear to understand what Jesus is actually saying ?

So what manner of man would be willing to give up all he has for the love of
Jesus Christ ?

Love of Jesus Christ
Or
Your love for worldly things ?
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
Well... there's no question whether or not we'll lose all our possessions at some point.

I got good inspiration for divesting myself of personal possessions last year when my home fell under a category 2 evacuation notice due to forest fires...i had to consider what was important and I had little room to bring stuff as I left my home. Turns out I was ready to give up a lot.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
It's not an impossibility, or even a hard thing to do. Jesus didn't say these things to deter any of you, or to keep you from gratification.

DO NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF ANYTHING ON THE EARTH, NOT EVEN YOURSELVES -- Unless you will be deluded.

GOD IS GOD; HE CANNOT BE SUBVERTED. Those of you who believe in free will, have already been deluded, and self-righteousness (greed, injustice, etc) is the result of that.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
especially in today's ultra-consumerist, globalized, economically competitive society

I agreed until you said this... as apparently it was not an obstacle for the people in Acts who sold their property or houses for money - suggesting that a consumerist, competitive economy was not an especial obstacle.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Jesus plainly stated:


Luke 14:33: So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

"Ouch!" Pretty blunt, eh? Note how he stipulates: "none of you", nobody. Nada. Hyperbole, perhaps, but it still gets the message across in bold lettering.

Jesus' statement presupposes a dichotomy between what one has for usage but does not own (real estate, movable goods, money) and that which truly belongs to the disciple, “the true riches” (Luke 16:11), the everlasting wealth of the grace of God.

In light of the kingdom of God, possessions become elachistos (Luke 16:10), they belong to the passing age. Later in the same gospel account, Jesus contends that worldly assets are "the belongings of another" (Luke 16:12), clearly implying that we do not properly 'own' any private property in the absolute sense, because we are really 'stewards' of goods which, in point of fact, belonged originally to God and by his will everyone who lives on earth prior to our appropriation.

In chapter 16, Jesus explains this teaching by means of his 'Parable of the Dishonest Steward'. This involves a steward, or manager, who misappropriates and squanders his master's wealth for which reason he is threatened with redundancy. The meaning is rather stark: Jesus is telling his listeners that we are all, each one of us, 'dishonest stewards' appropriating to ourselves and squandering goods which do not properly belong to us but to God, who intends for them to be used for the benefit of all and especially the underprivileged.

And the earliest Christian community, according to the New Testament, literally did do this:


The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45)


Can we truly call ourselves disciples of Jesus when most of us fail to come anywhere near the rigorous demands of this high ideal, especially in today's ultra-consumerist, globalized, economically competitive society?
Also he plainly said "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees you will not enter the kingdom of God," yet few if any study what was righteous about the Pharisees. I hear many denounce them, because it is convenient to take Jesus rebukes to some as a definition of what Pharisees are. Naturally the kingdom of God has not appeared on Earth 'As it is in heaven' On the other hand maybe the 12 got their act together and did exceed that righteousness, but clearly few modern Christians do. I also must question whether monks and nuns do since they go unmarried. Pharisees always get married. Therefore to exceed their righteousness one should at least attempt it.
 
Top