Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Christians Giving up All Possessions

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Obviously you have not given up all possessions, or you would not be posting here from your computer. Why not?
    I don't think it would be obvious for communes to completely lack computers. However, you happen to be correct. I'm still studying this topic so it is possible that my mind will be changed. Also, in most cases I think giving up your possessions is something you should do after careful consideration as Luke 14:28-33 suggests. There are communes that turn into cults and vice versa so it's important to be careful. There are also some things I want to get figured out with my career before I do this because I would like to have something significant to contribute to a commune.

    Thanks to everyone for their critiques and constructive criticisms. I appreciate it when people can disagree civilly with such a controversial and radical idea. Looking closely at the grammar of Matthew 28:20 was especially something I needed to be reminded to do. Another thing I forgot to mention was Peter claiming he had given up everything alongside with them speaking of "Peter's house" may be explained by the concept of usufruct that Schnabel speaks of (although I haven't found other sources to back him up)

    ". . . In Qumran, the surrender of one's property upon entry in the Qumran community was obligatory. The paradox that the members of the Essene community are said to contribute all their wealth, while they still appear to have retained private property, can be explained as follows: Jews in the ancient world did not regard the adjectives "private" and "public," when related to property, as mutually exclusive as we do today. Property that an individual "had" could be understood to "be" both for the individual and for the group. Thus, "the donor offers the right of usufruct to another but retains the right of ownership," a concept that explains the practice of shared property at Qumran. . . "
    https://books.google.com/books?id=fj...ufruct&f=false

    His footnote states: "The term "usufruct" is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "the right of temporary possession, use, or enjoyment of the advantages of the property belonging to another, so far as may be had without causing damage or prejudice to this""

    Eckhard J Schnabel is also someone who wrote a commentary on Acts that disagrees with the idea of them literally having everything in common but he only breifly talks about the Church in Acts so I do need to check out Craig Bloomberg book at some point. I may post back here later with a paper on the topic from the perspective I have but it needs some more editing first. I will welcome critiques on that as well. Thanks.

    Comment


    • #17
      Giving up everything and following Jesus in such a radical way is not for everyone. But I do believe its an especially blessed way of following Christ.

      Like the others here I don't think it implies socialism, or implies that all Christians ought to live that way.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        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.)
        Was it Neither Poverty nor Riches? That's where he wrote that it was a periodic selling of property (noting the phrase "from time to time" used by the NIV translation in Acts 4:34) stating that:

        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).

        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          Was it Neither Poverty nor Riches? That's where he wrote that it was a periodic selling of property (noting the phrase "from time to time" used by the NIV translation in Acts 4:34) stating that:

          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).
          Yeah, I've looked at that before. Interestingly the theme "according to need" doesn't give me a normal generous community vibe. It reminds me of this, although obviously anachronistic:
          https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr...ng_to_his_need (just to be clear I'm not at all advocating marxism :) )

          I think this is also the fallacy of division: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division Just because the group was continually selling their possessions does not mean that individuals are involved in the same continuous activity. The church in Acts may not have formed all at once and indeed it says that daily people were added to their number (Acts 2:47). If they sold their possessions upon joining this would mean that every day there would have been a chance of someone joining with property to sell. This is only one way to think of this as working. Also there may be people participating in worship with them that hadn't fully become part of the church or sold their possessions yet. In Acts 5 the casual people who joined them on solomon's porch are scared away by the incident with Annanias and Saphira. I'm getting this from a study I did on the words translated "added" and "joined" in YLT here. "Added" seems to be the more intimate term:

          11 and great fear came upon all the assembly, and upon all who heard these things.
          12 And through the hands of the apostles came many signs and wonders among the people, and they were with one accord all in the porch of Solomon;
          13 and of the rest no one was daring to join himself to them, but the people were magnifying them,
          14 (and the more were believers added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women,)
          (Acts 5 YLT)

          EDIT: "added" is also used in Acts 2:41 and Acts 2:47 https://studybible.info/search-inter...4369/start/240
          Last edited by Zendasi; 07-24-2018, 08:13 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Keener says this in his Bible Background Commentary:

            2:43–45. The Greek language Luke uses here is language that Pythagoreans and others used for the ideal, utopian community. Those who have argued that the early church made a mistake in 2:44–45 are thus reading their own views into the Bible, not hearing Luke’s message, because Luke portrays this radical lifestyle as the result of the outpouring of the Spirit.

            Some Jewish groups, like the group that lived at Qumran, followed the Pythagorean model and turned all their possessions over to the leaders of the community so they could all withdraw from society. That is hardly the case here, although the economic sharing is no less radical. The early Christians acknowledge that Jesus owns both them and their property (cf. 4:32); they sell off property to meet needs as they arise (4:34–35) and open their homes as meeting places for fellow Christians (2:46). These actions do not reflect an ascetic ideal, as in some Greek and Jewish sects, but instead the practice of radically valuing people over possessions. Such behavior reportedly continued among Christians well into the second century, and it was long ridiculed by pagans until pagan values finally overwhelmed the church.

            Note that he is clearly not saying that everyone gave everything away; they met needs as they arose, and those with suitable homes kept them and made them available as meeting places.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
              Keener says this in his Bible Background Commentary:


              Some Jewish groups, like the group that lived at Qumran, followed the Pythagorean model and turned all their possessions over to the leaders of the community so they could all withdraw from society. That is hardly the case here, although the economic sharing is no less radical. The early Christians acknowledge that Jesus owns both them and their property (cf. 4:32); they sell off property to meet needs as they arise (4:34–35) and open their homes as meeting places for fellow Christians (2:46). These actions do not reflect an ascetic ideal, as in some Greek and Jewish sects, but instead the practice of radically valuing people over possessions. Such behavior reportedly continued among Christians well into the second century, and it was long ridiculed by pagans until pagan values finally overwhelmed the church.

              Note that he is clearly not saying that everyone gave everything away; they met needs as they arose, and those with suitable homes kept them and made them available as meeting places.
              Since he says it is no less radical than the Pythagorean model we are left with the a problem that needs to be solved: the modern church is not operating this way. I tend to see the "all things in common" part as literal and don't see how needs being met implies how there wasn't common ownership but lets say he's right . . . we still must make some radical changes. I've also talked about how when it refers to such and such person's home it wouldn't necessarilly imply ownership but the person who formerly owned in or was staying there. (as Peter is said to have a house and he says he "left all" to follow Christ along with the rest) In addition there is the concept of usufruct that may have been operating among the Essenes as Schnable argues that would be closer to what Keener is talking about: full sharing among the community while people still retained ownership.

              32 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. (Acts 4 NKJV)
              Last edited by Zendasi; 07-25-2018, 10:10 PM.

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
              35 responses
              166 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Cow Poke  
              Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
              4 responses
              49 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
              Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
              10 responses
              119 views
              1 like
              Last Post mikewhitney  
              Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
              14 responses
              71 views
              3 likes
              Last Post Cow Poke  
              Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
              13 responses
              59 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Cow Poke  
              Working...
              X