Christians Giving up All Possessions

[Zendasi]

Was curious what holes you could poke or things you could put in context in the following argument:

1 The apostles were commanded to give up everything and kept all things in common: Mark 10:28, John 12:5-6 (common purse) Matthew 4:19-20
2 The disciples of the apostles were also Jesus's disciples: John 13:35 and John 4:1-2
3 The apostles were to teach the disciples to observe everything Jesus had commanded them: Matthew 28:18-20
4 Therefore all disciples of Christ were commanded to give up everything.

This would seem to advocate we all join a church like that in the book of Acts. Thoughts?

[KingsGambit]

Using the strict logic given, all Christians would have to be homeless and be itinerant teachers because this is what the twelve disciples did. However, we see from later in the New Testament that some Christians had houses, and possessions (1 Timothy 6:17).

The three citations from the gospels in point #1 do not establish your point. They show what the disciples did in that particular circumstance (and the third one doesn't even talk about possessions, but rather just about getting up and following Jesus). It nowhere says that this was a commandment or a doctrine for all Christians, any more than speaking the particular language they used was. It would be a real stretch to say that these examples must be included in Matthew 28:18-20 (your point three), and the fact that the rest of the New Testament does not strictly follow this example seals the deal.

[NorrinRadd]

Using the strict logic given, all Christians would have to be homeless and be itinerant teachers because this is what the twelve disciples did. However, we see from later in the New Testament that some Christians had houses, and possessions (1 Timothy 6:17).

The three citations from the gospels in point #1 do not establish your point. They show what the disciples did in that particular circumstance (and the third one doesn't even talk about possessions, but rather just about getting up and following Jesus). It nowhere says that this was a commandment or a doctrine for all Christians, any more than speaking the particular language they used was. It would be a real stretch to say that these examples must be included in Matthew 28:18-20 (your point three), and the fact that the rest of the New Testament does not strictly follow this example seals the deal.

Right. For instance, we know explicitly from, e.g., Acts 16:40, Rom. 16:3-5, Col. 4:15, etc. that some believers not only kept their homes, but used them as meeting places for the church. This is probably also at least implicit in the "domestic codes" tables in Col. 3-4 and Eph. 5-6; in those cases, even if a "house-church" setting is not implied, it was assumed the householders would retain such things as slaves (albeit with the strong admonition to not treat them as such).

[Teallaura]

Scripture also specifically mentions people who provided material support for Jesus and his ministry - and not by giving Him everything they had.

[Zendasi]

[mikewhitney]

Was curious what holes you could poke or things you could put in context in the following argument:

1 The apostles were commanded to give up everything and kept all things in common: Mark 10:28, John 12:5-6 (common purse) Matthew 4:19-20
2 The disciples of the apostles were also Jesus's disciples: John 13:35 and John 4:1-2
3 The apostles were to teach the disciples to observe everything Jesus had commanded them: Matthew 28:18-20
4 Therefore all disciples of Christ were commanded to give up everything.

This would seem to advocate we all join a church like that in the book of Acts. Thoughts?

You should examine the semantic range of meaning of the Greek for Matt 28:18-20. Maybe the most basic thing to check for is whether the passage is saying to teach others to do all that the apostles were told to do or whether the passage is saying to teach and promote what Jesus told them to teach and promote.

Some meanings are also unlikely. All Christians would not be sent to go and bring the message of the pre-resurrected Christ to all of Israel in the land of Judea.

Probably the most significant point was that the apostles have died. So they aren't telling people what Jesus has commanded anymore. there is then an era that ended with the death of the apostles.

[Faber]

This would seem to advocate we all join a church like that in the book of Acts. Thoughts?

If you look closely at Acts 2:44-45, what Luke is describing appears to be a situation that no longer existed at the time he wrote Acts. Probably because it didn't work. Just like the Plymouth colony experiment by William Bradford. People are people.

And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and theybegan selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. (Acts 2:44-45, NASB)

[KingsGambit]

Craig Blomberg, who wrote a book length analysis of the roles of possessions with Christians, did an analysis of Acts 2. I've read so much of his that I can't remember which book this particular analysis was in but he concluded that Acts 2 was probably not a situation of selling all goods at once but rather as an individual need occurred.

(His conclusion was that Christians ought to hold possessions much less loosely than they do in Western Christianity, but that the Bible as a whole balances this ascetic outlook somewhat with reminders that material blessings are nonetheless a gift from God.)

[Zendasi]

You should examine the semantic range of meaning of the Greek for Matt 28:18-20. Maybe the most basic thing to check for is whether the passage is saying to teach others to do all that the apostles were told to do or whether the passage is saying to teach and promote what Jesus told them to teach and promote.

Some meanings are also unlikely. All Christians would not be sent to go and bring the message of the pre-resurrected Christ to all of Israel in the land of Judea.

Probably the most significant point was that the apostles have died. So they aren't telling people what Jesus has commanded anymore. there is then an era that ended with the death of the apostles.

Possibly but it seems to me that Christ was being self replicating in his teachings and this was not to end with the apostles: 1 Corinthians 11:1 I also don't think the command to "make disciples" means to bring the message of Christ to everyone. Disciples were people that usually came to you and followed you around and learned from you. In a community context everyone could participate in helping make disciples no matter how ignorant they were. Everyone has a different life experience and something to contribute.

Strangely I can't make head or tail of the middle voice used for the word translated "I commanded" it seems like Christ is commanding himself since I understand the middle voice as reflexive:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-20.htm


Parsing Key
Part of Speech: Verb

Tense: Aorist
Mood: Indicative
Voice: Middle

Person: 1st Person
Number: Singular

[Zendasi]

Scripture also specifically mentions people who provided material support for Jesus and his ministry - and not by giving Him everything they had.

Right. For instance, we know explicitly from, e.g., Acts 16:40, Rom. 16:3-5, Col. 4:15, etc. that some believers not only kept their homes, but used them as meeting places for the church. This is probably also at least implicit in the "domestic codes" tables in Col. 3-4 and Eph. 5-6; in those cases, even if a "house-church" setting is not implied, it was assumed the householders would retain such things as slaves (albeit with the strong admonition to not treat them as such).

https://www.christianforums.com/thre...#post-72605550coming of the Holy Spiritinto the heaven, shall so come in what manner ye
saw him going on to the heavenout of the heaven
a sound as of a bearing violent breath, and it filled all the house where
they were sitting, 3 and there appeared to them divided tongues, as it
were of fire; it sat also upon each one of them, 4 and they were all filled
with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, according
as the Spirit was giving them to declare. (Acts 2 YLT)

Finally the word translated "having come" in 1 John 4:2 is in the perfect active voice http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_john/4-2.htm
which "emphasizes the present, or ongoing result of a completed action" http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson23.htmhttps://www.christiancourier.com/art...-matthew-10-23

Hopefully I didn't open up another can of worms :)

[thewriteranon]

Middle voice isn't always reflexive. εντελλομαι is a deponent verb.

[KingsGambit]

Also, if you are going around posting this on various message boards as you admit, it appears you are here to argue and not discuss, so I will see myself out.

[Zendasi]

Craig Blomberg, who wrote a book length analysis of the roles of possessions with Christians, did an analysis of Acts 2. I've read so much of his that I can't remember which book this particular analysis was in but he concluded that Acts 2 was probably not a situation of selling all goods at once but rather as an individual need occurred.

(His conclusion was that Christians ought to hold possessions much less loosely than they do in Western Christianity, but that the Bible as a whole balances this ascetic outlook somewhat with reminders that material blessings are nonetheless a gift from God.)

Thanks I haven't actually heard of him before although apparently I did look at some of his arguments when I responded to this article which quotes him: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...and-socialism/ I'll check it out more when I have time. I think it's this: https://www.amazon.com/Neither-Pover...thegospcoal-20 I would like to see the context he uses. Since to me it seems the context of giving up of all possessions would have been normal and understood given the Essenes and their influence on Christianity (Paul was responding to an Essene teaching called "works of the law" https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/docume...ristianity.pdfhttps://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...n-the-essenes/

[Zendasi]

Also, if you are going around posting this on various message boards as you admit, it appears you are here to argue and not discuss, so I will see myself out.

I'm getting different perspectives from people but that requires defending my perspective and testing our arguments. Is there anything wrong with that? I also have over 200 posts on the Christian forums all on other topics, this isn't the only thing I talk about. (the thread I linked to is actually the only other thread I have like this one on the internet currently and is several months old)

[Sparko]

Obviously you have not given up all possessions, or you would not be posting here from your computer. Why not?