• 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!

Is Luke 14:33 Valid for Believers/Christians/Disciples?

Is Luke 14:33 Valid?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wish I didn't have to answer

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Shemiyah

New Member
Ok so here are some translations for you to review.

So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. KJV

So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. NASB

In the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions. ISV

So in the same way, whoever does not renounce all that he has, cannot be My disciple. TLV

So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. ESV

I am sure I missed some of your favorite translations.

The point I am seeing is that there is actually a qualification for disciples. Disciples must do Luke 14:33 or, they are not, or cannot be disciples. Then you look at Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32 and see a direct correlation. People asked, what should we do to be saved and with many other words of Acts 2:40, the apostles taught everything their master taught. They were devoted to the apostles teachings as in Acts 2:42, and the apostles were teaching them to give up all that they had and follow them. That is what he said to do in Matthew 28:20. He taught them to leave everything behind and follow Him ( Mark 10:28 ), and the apostles did the exact same thing on the day of Pentecost. This was what formed the church.

So my questions is - Does this still apply? Or are these words of the Savior of the whole world invalid as we have graduated or matured as a church?
 
Last edited:

74x12

Well-Known Member
Ok so here are some translations for you to review.

So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. KJV

So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. NASB

In the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions. ISV

So in the same way, whoever does not renounce all that he has, cannot be My disciple. TLV

So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. ESV

I am sure I missed some of your favorite translations.

The point I am seeing is that there is actually a qualification for disciples. Disciples must do Luke 14:33 or, they are not, or cannot be disciples. Then you look at Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32 and see a direct correlation. People asked, what should we do to be saved and with many other words of Acts 2:40, the apostles taught everything their master taught. They were devoted to the apostles teachings as in Acts 2:42, and the apostles were teaching them to give up all that they had and follow them. That is what he said to do in Matthew 28:20. He taught them to leave everything behind and follow Him, and they apostles did the exact same thing on the day of Pentecost. This was what formed the church.

So my questions is - Does this still apply? Or are these words of the Savior of the whole world invalid as we have graduated or matured as a church?
Firstly, there is no Acts 14:33. But I see you mean Luke 14:33.

The thing is that we aren't living to the written letter but the Spirit. (Romans 7:6) So Luke 14:33 should be interpreted in that way rather than as a strict law. In other words, if God tells someone to forsake all for some reason or if they must do it for some reason; then that applies. Suffice to say; a disciple should be willing to forsake all if they must.

But even in His own lifetime; Jesus did not tell everyone to literally forsake all. For example Zacchaeus was not told to forsake all he had. Yet, Jesus said he was saved. (Luke 19:8)

In fact if every believer in Jesus in those days would have forsaken all and followed Jesus around; then it would have been a massive horde of people wondering the countryside. Jesus only had a relatively few people following Him around. The majority of the people that believed in Him stayed home such as Zacchaeus and Lazarus and his sisters etc.

Does it still apply? Yes of course. But not as a strict unyielding "law of the Medes and Persians that altereth not". (Daniel 6:8) Instead, It is a Law that applies as people are led by the Spirit. (Galatians 5:18) And as they "love not their lives unto the death". (Revelation 12:11)
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Ok so here are some translations for you to review.

So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. KJV

So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. NASB

In the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions. ISV

So in the same way, whoever does not renounce all that he has, cannot be My disciple. TLV

So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. ESV

I am sure I missed some of your favorite translations.

The point I am seeing is that there is actually a qualification for disciples. Disciples must do Luke 14:33 or, they are not, or cannot be disciples. Then you look at Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32 and see a direct correlation. People asked, what should we do to be saved and with many other words of Acts 2:40, the apostles taught everything their master taught. They were devoted to the apostles teachings as in Acts 2:42, and the apostles were teaching them to give up all that they had and follow them. That is what he said to do in Matthew 28:20. He taught them to leave everything behind and follow Him ( Mark 10:28 ), and the apostles did the exact same thing on the day of Pentecost. This was what formed the church.

So my questions is - Does this still apply? Or are these words of the Savior of the whole world invalid as we have graduated or matured as a church?

Applies if you wanted to be a disciple. Luke, Matthew, Paul etc. Most Christians are followers, not disciples.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Ok so here are some translations for you to review.

So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. KJV

So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. NASB

In the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions. ISV

So in the same way, whoever does not renounce all that he has, cannot be My disciple. TLV

So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. ESV

I am sure I missed some of your favorite translations.

The point I am seeing is that there is actually a qualification for disciples. Disciples must do Luke 14:33 or, they are not, or cannot be disciples. Then you look at Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32 and see a direct correlation. People asked, what should we do to be saved and with many other words of Acts 2:40, the apostles taught everything their master taught. They were devoted to the apostles teachings as in Acts 2:42, and the apostles were teaching them to give up all that they had and follow them. That is what he said to do in Matthew 28:20. He taught them to leave everything behind and follow Him ( Mark 10:28 ), and the apostles did the exact same thing on the day of Pentecost. This was what formed the church.

So my questions is - Does this still apply? Or are these words of the Savior of the whole world invalid as we have graduated or matured as a church?
To be saved according to Jesus is only through doing the will of God, which means following the laws. According to God, he is the only one that can save you and no one else, which seems to fit well with what Jesus is saying. So the confusion as I see it starts later, when Paul, starts saying that this is not really important, because Jesus died for our sins and that it is through Jesus and the believe in him as the savior that one can be saved. Which means that you obviously end up with a conflict, because is Jesus and God correct or is Paul? If Paul is correct, clearly God and Jesus lied, which causes some issues in regards to them actually knowing what they are doing and what people claim about them. On the other hand if Jesus and God is correct, then pretty much all Christians will not be saved as no one follows the law, so its not an easy one to solve.

However its pretty clear from the bible that Paul have never met Jesus in person and we only have his own testimony for him saying that Jesus appeared to him. He also claim that he is the apostle of the heathens, even though this were not assigned to him. Then you have a conflict between him and one of the other apostle (Peter I think it is) regarding the laws and whether heathens should follow them or not, which they don't seem to be completely in agreement of.

But that is what the bible pretty much say. So then you have to add all the theologian interpretations on top of it, which in large agree with Paul and that you will be saved through believing in Christ. Which obviously is not the whole story as they will have some issues explaining if child molesters or murders will be saved as well. As there seems to be no demands to who or what can be saved, if you just believe in Jesus, which would make them disciples according to that way of looking at it, as a disciple is basically just a student of the teachings. The church in general doesn't really play any role at all in this, except as place to go and hangout with other believers and you know this is where the priest is. :)
 
Last edited:

Shemiyah

New Member
But even in His own lifetime; Jesus did not tell everyone to literally forsake all.
Are you saying that the Gospel of Luke is Erroneous? Seemingly it is a full account of his lifetime


In fact if every believer in Jesus in those days would have forsaken all and followed Jesus around; then it would have been a massive horde of people wondering the countryside. Jesus only had a relatively few people following Him around.
[/QUOTE

That is precisely my point. The strict adherence to everything he said to do would produce only a small band of followers. For example Matthew 19 is very clear-

21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”

His commandments would not be oppressive for those who love Him. John 14:15 and John 14:21
 

Shemiyah

New Member
To be saved according to Jesus is only through doing the will of God, which means following the laws. According to God, he is the only one that can save you and no one else, which seems to fit well with what Jesus is saying. So the confusion as I see it starts later, when Paul, starts saying that this is not really important, because Jesus died for our sins and that it is through Jesus and the believe in him as the savior that one can be saved. Which means that you obviously end up with a conflict, because is Jesus and God correct or is Paul? If Paul is correct, clearly God and Jesus lied, which causes some issues in regards to them actually knowing what they are doing and what people claim about them. On the other hand if Jesus and God is correct, then pretty much all Christians will not be saved as no one follows the law, so its not an easy one to solve.

However its pretty clear from the bible that Paul have never met Jesus in person and we only have his own testimony for him saying that Jesus appeared to him. He also claim that he is the apostle of the heathens, even though this were not assigned to him. Then you have a conflict between him and one of the other apostle (Peter I think it is) regarding the laws and whether heathens should follow them or not, which they don't seem to be completely in agreement of.

But that is what the bible pretty much say. So then you have to add all the theologian interpretations on top of it, which in large agree with Paul and that you will be saved through believing in Christ. Which obviously is not the whole story as they will have some issues explaining if child molesters or murders will be saved as well. As there seems to be no demands to who or what can be saved, if you just believe in Jesus, which would make them disciples according to that way of looking at it, as a disciple is basically just a student of the teachings. The church in general doesn't really play any role at all in this, except as place to go and hangout with other believers and you know this is where the priest is. :)

Just to clarify, are you saying that Paul said the law was not important?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The point I am seeing is that there is actually a qualification for disciples.
And we should read them literally, why? It also says that we should hate, and not just hate period, but specifically our own mother and father, and children, and wife. (lk. 14:26) Is that literal too? Does that really sound like Jesus wants us to literally hate?

So my questions is - Does this still apply? Or are these words of the Savior of the whole world invalid as we have graduated or matured as a church?
They are invalid to read them literally.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Ok so here are some translations for you to review.

So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. KJV

So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. NASB

In the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions. ISV

So in the same way, whoever does not renounce all that he has, cannot be My disciple. TLV

So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. ESV

I am sure I missed some of your favorite translations.

The point I am seeing is that there is actually a qualification for disciples. Disciples must do Luke 14:33 or, they are not, or cannot be disciples. Then you look at Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32 and see a direct correlation. People asked, what should we do to be saved and with many other words of Acts 2:40, the apostles taught everything their master taught. They were devoted to the apostles teachings as in Acts 2:42, and the apostles were teaching them to give up all that they had and follow them. That is what he said to do in Matthew 28:20. He taught them to leave everything behind and follow Him ( Mark 10:28 ), and the apostles did the exact same thing on the day of Pentecost. This was what formed the church.

So my questions is - Does this still apply? Or are these words of the Savior of the whole world invalid as we have graduated or matured as a church?
Renounce attachment to one's physicality. I am not of this world.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that the Gospel of Luke is Erroneous? Seemingly it is a full account of his lifetime
No, you're erroneous not Luke. You just don't get it. :D
That is precisely my point. The strict adherence to everything he said to do would produce only a small band of followers. For example Matthew 19 is very clear-

21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”

His commandments would not be oppressive for those who love Him. John 14:15 and John 14:21
Are you saying that Lazarus wasn't saved? What about Mary and Martha who stayed home?

Besides you don't get to decide who really forsook all and who didn't. God does. They did forsake all.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Ok so here are some translations for you to review.

So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. KJV

So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. NASB

In the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions. ISV

So in the same way, whoever does not renounce all that he has, cannot be My disciple. TLV

So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. ESV

I am sure I missed some of your favorite translations.

The point I am seeing is that there is actually a qualification for disciples. Disciples must do Luke 14:33 or, they are not, or cannot be disciples. Then you look at Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32 and see a direct correlation. People asked, what should we do to be saved and with many other words of Acts 2:40, the apostles taught everything their master taught. They were devoted to the apostles teachings as in Acts 2:42, and the apostles were teaching them to give up all that they had and follow them. That is what he said to do in Matthew 28:20. He taught them to leave everything behind and follow Him ( Mark 10:28 ), and the apostles did the exact same thing on the day of Pentecost. This was what formed the church.

So my questions is - Does this still apply? Or are these words of the Savior of the whole world invalid as we have graduated or matured as a church?

Luke never met Jesus.

Luke didn't hook up with Saul/Paul until 51 AD.

Saint Luke | Facts & History | Britannica.com
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Luke
According to ancient sources, St. Luke was martyred at age 84 in the Greek city of Thebes. His remains were taken to Constantinople about 338 CE and later moved to Padua, Italy, where they are kept in the Basilica of Santa Giustina. A rib is interred at his original burial place in Thebes.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
What is the difference between a follower and a disciple?

Disciples would become church leaders. Those that would teach what Jesus taught them. People that had the authority to carry his teaching to the masses. I believe Jesus expected them to have the same complete faith in God that he had. To trust God to provide for them. Most IMO are not capable of that kind of faith. You can't really teach the faith necessary if you are not yourself capable of it.

Not everyone is called to this position. Many still struggle with faith. Even though a Christian and a follower, this are not really the people to learn about the necessary faith from.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that a Disciple of Jesus in 2019 would likely not be noticed. I do know of one body, loosely, and unofficially called "The Way". I've had contact with them twice. It is incomprehensible to me, but the followers of it seem devoted and I wish them the best. The congregation was around 75 people. In the service, there was no music, so the hymns were acapella. I think the leader spoke almost all scripture. It was a long time ago, and I don't remember much. They said that their Disciples were pairs of either males or females (?) and stayed at member's houses. If they had a car, it was given to them. I do not have a criticism of them.

Some may think they are, "The Way International", but I do not think that is correct. I doubt that the members of the group that I met had an Internet presence.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
Disciples would become church leaders. Those that would teach what Jesus taught them. People that had the authority to carry his teaching to the masses. I believe Jesus expected them to have the same complete faith in God that he had. To trust God to provide for them. Most IMO are not capable of that kind of faith. You can't really teach the faith necessary if you are not yourself capable of it.

Not everyone is called to this position. Many still struggle with faith. Even though a Christian and a follower, this are not really the people to learn about the necessary faith from.

I believe I don't see it as that specific. To me a disciple is one who has Jesus as Lord and a follower is one who thinks he can manage to be like Jesus through his own efforts.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
It seems to me that a Disciple of Jesus in 2019 would likely not be noticed. I do know of one body, loosely, and unofficially called "The Way". I've had contact with them twice. It is incomprehensible to me, but the followers of it seem devoted and I wish them the best. The congregation was around 75 people. In the service, there was no music, so the hymns were acapella. I think the leader spoke almost all scripture. It was a long time ago, and I don't remember much. They said that their Disciples were pairs of either males or females (?) and stayed at member's houses. If they had a car, it was given to them. I do not have a criticism of them.

Some may think they are, "The Way International", but I do not think that is correct. I doubt that the members of the group that I met had an Internet presence.

I believe the Way International has had a lot of bad press so maybe a group wold avoid mentioning it. It is a generic term however so it could be entirely separate. I once attended a Way International meeting and got into a discussion about prophecy. A leader pulled the person away because evidently people shouldn't hear opinions that are not in keeping with the group. Also they try to force .people to speak in tongues when tongues is a gift from God that only God can decide who gets it.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I believe the Way International has had a lot of bad press so maybe a group wold avoid mentioning it. It is a generic term however so it could be entirely separate. I once attended a Way International meeting and got into a discussion about prophecy. A leader pulled the person away because evidently people shouldn't hear opinions that are not in keeping with the group.

Also they try to force .people to speak in tongues when tongues is a gift from God that only God can decide who gets it.

You should avoid them at all costs.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
But even in His own lifetime; Jesus did not tell everyone to literally forsake all. For example Zacchaeus was not told to forsake all he had. Yet, Jesus said he was saved. (Luke 19:8)
I think the Sermon on the Plain was directed at everyone in attendance, and there he condemned people who were "wealthy" enough not to go hungry occasionally:

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already.
“Woe to you who are well satisfied with food now, for you will be hungry.


It's a common theme throughout the Gospels: Jesus presents everyone with a choice between poverty now and the Kingdom later, or comfort now and no reward later.
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
I think the Sermon on the Plain was directed at everyone in attendance, and there he condemned people who were "wealthy" enough not to go hungry occasionally:

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already.
“Woe to you who are well satisfied with food now, for you will be hungry.


It's a common theme throughout the Gospels: Jesus presents everyone with a choice between poverty now and the Kingdom later, or comfort now and no reward later.
You're being literal. Jesus is using similitudes. It's not really a new concept. Basically everything Jesus said was already in the Jewish scriptures; but Jesus was saying it in new ways. Putting it together in ways people hadn't heard before.

here are a couple of scriptures talking about eating that aren't meant to be about literal food. Instead, it's about spiritual nourishment.
  • Psalm 34:8
  • Isaiah 55:1-3
The idea that Jesus is speaking of in the beatitudes is how we should be spiritually hungry for something from God. If our lives are already full of many earthly things then we won't seek the things that come from heaven.

The concept is set forth in Proverbs 27:7. The full soul loathes even the honeycomb. In those days the honeycomb was a special treat. It was something quite sweet and tasty that you didn't get to eat very often. So it's saying something to "loathe" a honeycomb. That is how someone who is full of the cares of life and pleasures of this world (Luke 8:14) could miss out on true spiritual nourishment that is special and rare. Because they just aren't interested. Their lives are already full and they are quite satisfied. This is why Jesus says woe to those who are full now.

It's not because God wants people to be physically hungry (unless they are fasting which is good to do). Its because God wants people to desire the spiritual nourishment He has for them.
 
Top