Wealth and salvation in Mark 10.17-22

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

Might I remind you that various theories pertaining to the dating of Hebrews, Matthew, and the book of Acts are not the topic of this thread. You may of course start your own thread on those matters.

[rogue06]

Might I remind you that various theories pertaining to the dating of Hebrews, Matthew, and the book of Acts are not the topic of this thread. You may of course start your own thread on those matters.

You were the one who started talking about the date of when Acts was written.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

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.

The work known as Luke's gospel was written decades after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Or are you of the opinion that that these canonical gospels are the writings of eye-witnesses?

"go, sell what you own, and give the money^[c] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me"

[Cow Poke]

For Jesus in the Mark account,

You can't just pick and choose scriptures and build a theology on that.

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

Repeatedly, we find Jesus saying things like "you have heard it said... but I say...."

He didn't come to enforce or the rules and regulations of the Law, and His greatest battles were with the teachers of that Law.

I understand the Kingdom of Heaven/God as a Jewish eschatological concept.

And Jesus expounds upon it, while doing battle with those who tried to make it legalistic, like you are doing.

[Cow Poke]

The work known as Luke's gospel was written decades after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Or are you of the opinion that that these canonical gospels are the writings of eye-witnesses?

"go, sell what you own, and give the money^[c] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me"

Yes, he said that to the person who has become known as "the rich young ruler". For a purpose.

[Cow Poke]

Embellishment or additional biographical detail?

Yes.

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

Making a point that "the rich young ruler" suffered from the "love of money" pitfall. It wasn't his wealth, it was his entanglement with his wealth.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You can't just pick and choose scriptures and build a theology on that.

I am not attempting to build any theology.

I was interested in the comment I received from a proclaimed Christian who wrote that the remarks made at Mark 10. 17-22 were "addressed to a particular unnamed rich person" and they were "a personalized remark for that individual and what he needed to do".

As I wrote in my OP:

On what basis is it to be concluded that this admonishment was only directed to this specific individual and if that interpretation is accepted why was only this individual required to sell all he had in order to "have treasure in heaven"? Did others not have to do likewise in order to attain that state?

If some present day Christians can decide that one episode in Mark 10 [later embellished in Matthew and Luke] only applies to the individual towards whom it was addressed, why heed any of Jesus' ethical teachings?

Those teachings, as with the episode in Mark 10, were likewise addressed to members of a contemporary audience.

[Cow Poke]

I am not attempting to build any theology.

Didn't say you were. But others have. It's never a good idea to take one verse of scripture (or passage) and try to establish an overall policy.

I was interested in the comment I received from a proclaimed Christian who wrote that the remarks made at Mark 10. 17-22 were "addressed to a particular unnamed rich person" and they were "a personalized remark for that individual and what he needed to do".

Yup!

As I wrote in my OP:

You can write it on the bathroom wall or the Wittenberg door - doesn't make it true.

On what basis is it to be concluded that this admonishment was only directed to this specific individual and if that interpretation is accepted why was only this individual required to sell all he had in order to "have treasure in heaven"? Did others not have to do likewise in order to attain that state?

It's called "context", out of which you ripped one brief passage.

If some present day Christians can decide that one episode in Mark 10 [later embellished in Matthew and Luke] only applies to the individual towards whom it was addressed, why heed any of Jesus' ethical teachings?

Because those teachings were not addressed to a specific individual for a specific purpose to make a specific point.

Those teachings, as with the episode in Mark 10, were likewise addressed to members of a contemporary audience.

Again -- Context.

[Sparko]

Didn't say you were. But others have. It's never a good idea to take one verse of scripture (or passage) and try to establish an overall policy.



Yup!



You can write it on the bathroom wall or the Wittenberg door - doesn't make it true.



It's called "context", out of which you ripped one brief passage.



Because those teachings were not addressed to a specific individual for a specific purpose to make a specific point.



Again -- Context.

Why are you even bothering? I went over all this with her in the other thread and despite that, she started this thread to rehash it again. The only reason being she thought it was a good topic to troll with. No explanation will be good enough to change her mind. She will claim she is correct and we are wrong because she knows the bible better than anyone else does. Despite having admitted previously to never having actually read it from cover to cover, just bits and pieces as quoted by other books and papers.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You can write it on the bathroom wall or the Wittenberg door - doesn't make it true.

My OP posed a question.

Because those teachings were not addressed to a specific individual for a specific purpose to make a specific point.

That implies a pick and mix approach as to which of Jesus' admonitions and injunctions the Christian of today chooses to follow.

If this specific individual in Mark 10 was required to "sell what you own, and give the money^[c] to the poor" in order to "have treasure in heaven" Did others not have to do likewise in order to attain that state? Or did Jesus operate a sliding scale as tabibito seemed to be suggesting?

[Sparko]

My OP posed a question.


That implies a pick and mix approach as to which of Jesus' admonitions and injunctions the Christian of today chooses to follow.

If this specific individual in Mark 10 was required to "sell what you own, and give the money^[c] to the poor" in order to "have treasure in heaven" Did others not have to do likewise in order to attain that state? Or did Jesus operate a sliding scale as tabibito seemed to be suggesting?

It requires reading in context and not generalizing passages beyond what they are actually saying. You know, using common sense.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It requires reading in context and not generalizing passages beyond what they are actually saying. You know, using common sense.

In the context of that text the meaning is quite clear. Namely, to follow the religious and moral core of Judaism and also sell all possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and then follow Jesus and his fellows in working to establish the kingdom of God.

[Sparko]

In the context of that text the meaning is quite clear. Namely, to follow the religious and moral core of Judaism and also sell all possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and then follow Jesus and his fellows in working to establish the kingdom of God.

Yes. For that individual who was held back by his love of money and possessions. You could generalize it to include others who have the same problem, being more concerned with wealth in this life than in following God, but to generalize it to mean that everyone must sell everything and give to the poor in order to follow Jesus is obviously generalizing it too far, as the bible is full of examples of rich people following God and not giving up their wealth, and even of God rewarding people with wealth (like Abraham, Solomon, etc). That is why reading in context and using common sense is necessary. But then you know all this and are merely trolling at this point by taking the bible in a woodenly literal way.

[Cow Poke]

My OP posed a question.

And repeating it doesn't make it any more valid.

That implies a pick and mix approach as to which of Jesus' admonitions and injunctions the Christian of today chooses to follow.

If this specific individual in Mark 10 was required to "sell what you own, and give the money^[c] to the poor" in order to "have treasure in heaven" Did others not have to do likewise in order to attain that state? Or did Jesus operate a sliding scale as tabibito seemed to be suggesting?

Are you, next, going to be declaring that we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes?

[Cow Poke]

In the context of that text the meaning is quite clear. Namely, to follow the religious and moral core of Judaism and also sell all possessions, give the proceeds to the poor, and then follow Jesus and his fellows in working to establish the kingdom of God.

It was all about the "you can't serve two masters". His possessions owned him, not the other way around.

Context!