Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Wealth and salvation in Mark 10.17-22

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Nice snips you sniped at, but if you did more than extract two widely separated sentences it would be clear the above was dealt with in the body of the post.
    A gap of two verses hardly constitutes "two widely separated sentences".
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      Neither.
      I am glad to read that.


      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      My comments were made from the first century Jewish perspective, not even (necessarily) from a first century Christian perspective - the times referred to in the gospels are those when the disciples are being moved from Jewish to Christian thought patterns.The idea that a righteous person would be made rich was an entrenched Jewish concept, though it did not preclude the possibility that an unrighteous person could also be rich, nor preclude the possibility that a righteous person could be poor.
      From what you have written there, your comments apply to everyone, good or bad.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      The idea was that in the long term, in this life, the righteous person would be rewarded and the unrighteous person punished.
      Righteousness in Judaism is not about wealth.

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      More than once, Jesus made comments that jolted his disciples out of their cultural conditioning - a necessary process at times to allow room for new concepts. "Salvation is independent of wealth" was a radical departure from cultural conditioning.
      Not in later Second Temple Judaism. Perhaps you should go back and read the prophets, particularly Jeremiah as well as some of the Psalms. It is also necessary to to understand the complex historical realities of Judean, Samaritan, and Galilean society under Roman rule and recognise the plural "Judaisms" that existed including various versions of what we might describe as forms of "sectarian" Judaism.

      However, these various gospels were not being written for a Jewish population. They were directed towards Gentiles and some Hellenised Jews.

      Nor can we try to understand a real and individualistic Jesus who had no engagement in the prevailing contemporary situation suffered by so many of the common people. Leaders, and particularly religious leaders, do not usually operate in a vacuum outside of the society in which they live, and which they are seeking to alter. Gandhi has to be seen in the social context of the later British Raj, likewise Martin Luther King Jnr within the racial violence and segregation in the southern USA.

      The canonical gospels certainly show Jesus carrying out his teaching and healing in villages and small towns and he sends his disciples to stay with local people while they carry out his mission. It would therefore seem feasible that Jesus' teaching and healing had something to do with the experiences of those people living in such rural locations..

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      That said, the prosperity gospel is not entirely false (just 99%), and how the "poor being poor because they are lewd and feckless" could ever be supported in anyone's mind is a mystery - particularly given the activities of some of the wealthy "pillars of society."
      The dangerous notion of pre-destination will permit all sorts of attitudes to develop towards one's fellows.
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        As this thread title has caused difficulties for some, perhaps a moderator could change the title to:

        Wealth and salvation in Mark 10.17-22
        Done.

        Thanks for agreeing to do that.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          A gap of two verses hardly constitutes "two widely separated sentences".
          Your continuing inability to address the body of the post is noted

          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          The point that H_A keeps missing is that Jesus was neither making philanthropy nor poverty a requirement for salvation. Nicodemus was obviously fairly well-off, and there is no record of him having been told to sell all that you have and give to the poor. In fact, I would think that if he had, and obeyed, then he wouldn't likely have had tomb space to offer.

          You don't have to impoverish yourself to follow Jesus.

          As Acts Acts 12:12; 16:40; Romans 16:3-5; Colossians 4:15; I Timothy 6:17 all make clear some Christians (including John Mark -- the first reference) still owned property and their own homes, allowing them to be used upon occasion as meeting places for the church. If that concept were to be followed to the letter all Christians would have to be homeless and be itinerant.

          If all Christians were homeless then they wouldn't have had places to meet and conduct service. They really couldn't have maintained the communications network they had established throughout the Western Mediterranean since nobody would know how to contact anyone.

          In fact, if you take a look at Acts 5 it is clear that Ananias and Sapphira could have kept some if not all of their money. Peter even told them the money was theirs to do with as they wished. Their sin was not withholding their money but rather lying by telling the Apostles that they were donating the full amount for the sale of their land.

          Scripture Verse: Acts 5:3-4

          But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God."

          © Copyright Original Source



          Craig Blomberg, a Distinguished Professor of the New Testament at Denver Seminary, wrote Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possession provides a comprehensive examination of the roles of possessions with Christians, did an analysis into the issues of poverty and wealth which I recommend.

          For instance his analysis of Acts 2 he concludes that the circumstances weren't one where all the goods were sold all at once but was rather a periodic selling of property (noting the phrase "from time to time" used by the NIV translation in Acts 4:34) only as the need arose.

          This was not a one-time divestiture of all one’s possessions. The theme 'according to need,' reappears, too. Interestingly, what does not appear in this paragraph is any statement of complete equality among believers. Presumably, there was quite a spectrum, ranging from those who still held property not sold (cf. the reference to the home of John Mark in Acts 12:12) all the way to those who were still living at a very basic level.33 But the church was committed to taking the principle of Deuteronomy 15:4 very seriously: 'there should be no poor among you' (F. Martin 1972: 46).


          While he is rightfully critical of the materialism pervasive in Western culture, particularly among Christians since that is his focus, he tends to balance it with plenty of reminders that the Bible often speaks of material possessions being a blessing from God.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            Your continuing inability to address the body of the post is noted

            Acts was written more than fifty years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth, if not even later.

            Once again, individuals ignore the earliest Synoptic gospel and its accounts [as they have come down to us] of Jesus' ethical teachings but move instead to a [much later] NT text.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

              Done.

              Thanks for agreeing to do that.
              Thank you.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                Acts was written more than fifty years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth, if not even later.

                Once again, individuals ignore the earliest Synoptic gospel and its accounts [as they have come down to us] of Jesus' ethical teachings but move instead to a [much later] NT text.
                You seem to imagine a Jesus that would turn to the crowd after his encounter with "the rich young ruler", and declare "and that goes for you, too!".
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                  Acts was written more than fifty years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth, if not even later.

                  Once again, individuals ignore the earliest Synoptic gospel and its accounts [as they have come down to us] of Jesus' ethical teachings but move instead to a [much later] NT text.
                  In your fetid swamp of an imagination would you argue that a book written about the Vietnam War now could be hand waved away like you do with Acts because the war ended about 50 years ago?

                  Btw, FWICT, most scholars place its writing between 70 and 90 A.D. -- if not slightly earlier. That would be roughly between 35 to 55 years -- if not earlier.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                    Thank you.
                    You're quite welcome.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                      You seem to imagine a Jesus that would turn to the crowd after his encounter with "the rich young ruler", and declare "and that goes for you, too!".
                      In Mark 10 the individual is merely described as "a man" who " had many possessions".

                      The writer of Luke added the embellishment of "A certain ruler".

                      The instruction in Mark 10 is clear. In order to inherit eternal life [i.e. the Kingdom of God] it was necessary to follow the moral core of the Jewish religion and surrender worldly goods. Then join Jesus and those working with him for the Kingdom of God.



                      "It ain't necessarily so
                      The things that you're liable
                      To read in the Bible
                      It ain't necessarily so
                      ."

                      Sportin' Life
                      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        In your fetid swamp of an imagination would you argue that a book written about the Vietnam War now could be hand waved away like you do with Acts because the war ended about 50 years ago?

                        Btw, FWICT, most scholars place its writing between 70 and 90 A.D. -- if not slightly earlier. That would be roughly between 35 to 55 years -- if not earlier.
                        You are conflating this work with academic works. That is like using War and Peace as a historical reference text.

                        I have no idea as to which scholars you refer concerning dating. I have never come across any serious NT scholar who places it so precisely. The suggested dating is anything from 80 -130 CE. Even if it was written as early as 80 CE that still places it nearly fifty years after the death of Jesus and some twenty years after Paul disappears from history.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          In your fetid swamp of an imagination would you argue that a book written about the Vietnam War now could be hand waved away like you do with Acts because the war ended about 50 years ago?

                          Btw, FWICT, most scholars place its writing between 70 and 90 A.D. -- if not slightly earlier. That would be roughly between 35 to 55 years -- if not earlier.
                          The earliest touted date of composition is CE 60, with the latest at CE 150. There is no firm consensus, with groups favouring the earlier dates on the basis of what is actually written in the book. By contrast, Hebrews does have a consensus for prior to CE 70, with 63-68 being the most favoured time. A scant few outliers give the date as between CE 70-100. That would give rise to the question of why the author did not mention the destruction of the temple, which would underpin his argument for the obsolescence of the Old Covenant most forcefully. The same question arises with Matthew - whose focus on fulfilled prophecy would surely have prompted mention of the fall of the temple as fulfilment of Jesus' prophecy.
                          Last edited by tabibito; 01-10-2022, 09:45 AM.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                            In Mark 10 the individual is merely described as "a man" who " had many possessions".

                            The writer of Luke added the embellishment of "A certain ruler".
                            Hence, he is known as "the rich young ruler", and for that reason, I put it in parentheses.

                            The instruction in Mark 10 is clear.
                            The instruction to this individual, yes. That you wish to make it a condition of Salvation is nutty, as the whole rest of the New Testament makes it clear it's "not of works".

                            In order to inherit eternal life [i.e. the Kingdom of God] it was necessary to follow the moral core of the Jewish religion and surrender worldly goods.


                            Then join Jesus and those working with him for the Kingdom of God.
                            You obviously don't understand the complexity and extent of "the Kingdom of God".



                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                              Hence, he is known as "the rich young ruler", and for that reason, I put it in parentheses.



                              The instruction to this individual, yes. That you wish to make it a condition of Salvation is nutty,
                              For Jesus in the Mark account, in order to inherit eternal life [i.e. the Kingdom of God] it was necessary to follow the moral core of the Jewish religion and surrender worldly goods. Then join with Jesus and his fellow ascetics in working for the Kingdom of God


                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              You obviously don't understand the complexity and extent of "the Kingdom of God".
                              I understand the Kingdom of Heaven/God as a Jewish eschatological concept.

                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                In Mark 10 the individual is merely described as "a man" who " had many possessions".

                                The writer of Luke added the embellishment of "A certain ruler".

                                The instruction in Mark 10 is clear. In order to inherit eternal life [i.e. the Kingdom of God] it was necessary to follow the moral core of the Jewish religion and surrender worldly goods. Then join Jesus and those working with him for the Kingdom of God.
                                Embellishment or additional biographical detail?

                                What Jesus told him was that while he had the rest down right he was not yet willing or able to be saved.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                13 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                411 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X