Evidence for God from Science

windywherever wrote:

Paul wrote:The gospel (good news) is not about foresaking anything ( other than sin of course).

Hi Paul. Thanks for sharing. Would you be willing to say that forsaking our dependence on materialism is at least part of the gospel? Did you see the verses rain posted on the topic of forsaking materialism? What do you think about those verses?

I really liked your lesson about how people will know we're Jesus' followers by our love for one another and then how you related that to the parable of the sheep and goats. I'd like to add that these teachings about forsaking materialism are about loving one another. They teach us how to love.

For example, if we're no longer working for mammon (money and the things money can buy) then we're free to start working for love (as Jesus commanded (Matthew 6:24-34)). Any thoughts on that?

While CHOOSING to not work MAY be an option for some ( very few), even Paul and the apostles worked.
Even Christ worked ( up into the point he started His ministry).
To work is NOT to be materialist.
To value materials things OVER God is to be materialist.

Paul believed that, yes, you could make a living from preaching:

“If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?” (1 Cor. 9:11, ESV) and “the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14). To the Galatians, Paul wrote, “One who is taught the word must share all good things with the one who teaches” (Gal. 6:6).

BUT, what did He DO?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ . . . I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision . . . What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel (1 Cor. 9:15-18).

In short is is up to the individual to decide which way is best for them ( of course they are to listen to the HS and be guided by Christ in this).

It is right to be compensated for preaching, just as it is right to work so as to NOT be compensated for it.

Rick wrote:
But it depends on the context.


windywherever wrote:
Agreed. Context is important. In an earlier post you gave this explanation for context;

RickD wrote:
"First, the text isn't talking about "our" riches. Jesus was speaking to a specific audience. In Luke 12:33, Jesus is speaking to his disciples. There's no warrant for you to add all Christians of all future times, to the text".

windywherever wrote:
You suggest that the text isn't talking about all Christians, but that Jesus was only speaking to his disciples. But are Christians and disciples different? The word "disciple" literally means "one who is disciplined". I doubt Jesus wants some of his followers to be disciplined while others are not. Also, Acts 11:26 gives evidence that Christians and disciples are the same. In the context, there is no reason to suggest that Jesus taught a difference of standards for his followers. This is especially true considering he taught his disciples to also teach others to do the same as they were commanded to do (Matthew 28:19-20). If you have an explanation for why the values of heaven are meant to be different for us than what they were for Jesus and his followers, then I'm very open to considering that explanation.

John,

Rain was trying to make an argument from scripture, that we should all give away our possessions, and live in a Christian community. Rain proceeded to try to make the argument from scripture, by adding to what scripture actually says. Rain said that Jesus gave instructions about "our" riches, when the text does not say that.

I think the main idea of the chapter, is that Jesus is saying that the disciples shouldn't hold material possessions above their duty to work for the Kingdom. If you want to take a message from that text, and apply it to us, the message would probably be to seek things of God first, and not be distracted by material possessions. So, I'm not arguing against all believers doing things that bring us eternal rewards, instead of focusing on temporary possessions.

Rick wrote:
Second, in Luke 14:33, Jesus does not say that "anyone", meaning us, as you claim, who does not "forsake all they own..."
Jesus says in Luke 14:33:
So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.


He says, "None of YOU..."

There is no basis to assume "you" means all Christians of all times, including us.


windywherever wrote:
This is your second explanation about the context of Luke 14:33. In the KJV the word used is, "whosoever" meaning "anyone". It's the same "whosoever" which is used in John 3:16, "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". According to the context you're using, everlasting life should only be for the disciples of Jesus' time. Otherwise I think you will need to show some compelling evidence for the the two "whosoevers" are different.

Whosoever is the same word. But in Luke 14:33, there is a qualifier. Here, let's look at the two verses. I'll use the KJV, to get a better comparison.

Luke 14:33:
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
And John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The word "hymōn", translated as "you", which I underlined in the verse above, is not found in John 3:16.

So, the "whosoever" is the same in both verses. But the qualifier "you" or hymōn, is not found in John 3:16.

windywherever wrote:
When it comes to context the standard needs to be consistent. For example, you make a point that Jesus says, "none of YOU can be my disciple unless he forsakes all he has", suggesting that the "you" here only refers to the people who were actually, literally present at the exact moment Jesus said those words.

However, I've just had a look at the "discussion guidelines" and noticed this instruction under the "mannerism" section; "Write in a manner that you would want others to write to you - 'in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you' (Matthew 7:12)".

First, how am I being inconsistent, when I didn't write the discussion guidelines? And second, Matthew 7:12 is a basic rule, consistent throughout the NT, that is found inherent in the command to Love God, and our neighbor as ourself. Matthew 7:12 is found throughout the NT.

The eisegesis needed to believe Luke 14:33 is saying that all believers should sell all their possessions, and go live in "Christian Communities", is like I said, eisegesis. The text does not show a command to all believers, to do as rain has suggested.

windywherever wrote:
Here, the admins have used a quote from Jesus where he's clearly saying, "you" but they've used it in a way which suggests that it should apply to Christians for today. Do you also think this teaching should apply to Christians today? If so how do you reconcile the two? The context you used for Luke 14:33 is that the teaching doesn't apply to us because he said, "you", but the golden rule teaching quoted here also uses the same context; he's addressing it to "you".

Like I said, Matthew 7:12 is a theme found throughout the NT. Love our neighbors as ourselves. And Luke 14:33 as interpreted by rain and yourself, to mean we all should sell all our possessions and go live in a "Christian Community", is reading into the text something that is not there. And second, the idea of selling all we own, and living in a "Christian Community", certainly isn't found throughout the NT.

Look, if you want to go off and live in a community with others of similar beliefs, that's between you and God. But when you or anyone else comes in here, and adds to scripture to make it sound like we all should do as you believe, then I'm going to disagree.

And btw, for the sake of honesty and openness, do you and rain live together in the same community?

Rain wrote:
Thanks, windywherever, for your comments.

As the Quakers would say, ''You have spoken my mind''.

Rain, please be honest here. Is the reason why windywherever has spoken your mind, because you both belong to the same "Christian community"?

rain wrote:
However, in further response to RickD, the reason I used the word 'our' is because I see that the teachings Jesus gave to his disciples are meant for us too. With regards to the 'none of you/anyone' comment, I think it's clear from what I am saying that I believe Jesus clearly meant for his teachings to applicable to ANYONE that wants to be his disciple. Hence the verse from Matthew 28:20, in which Jesus commands his disciples to teach people to obey all things that he commanded them. It doesn't take much discernment to realize what commands he expected his disciples to pass on, and which ones he didn't. For example, can you imagine the disciples going into all the world preaching that people should 'give me to drink'' (in reference to the woman by the well), or ''enter a town, and find a colt tied on which never a man sat, and bring him to me''? Surely not. Yet we DO see his disciples teaching about the other things that Jesus taught/commanded. Read the book of James for an example. It's literally cramp packed with teachings that Jesus gave in the gospels. I know my original post was long, and so you may have overlooked it, but in the book of Acts 2, and 4, we see people joining the early church and a part of their joining of it was the selling of their possessions. So, why did they do that, unless it was being taught? And that would make perfect sense, seeing as Jesus DID teach his disciples to do that (which I think we at least can all agree on), and that he taught them to teach others to obey all things he commanded them.

Rain,

I wholeheartedly agree that no matter who Jesus was speaking to, the entire NT, including Jesus' teachings, is meant for us to understand. And you seem to be in agreement with me, that not all Jesus commanded, he commanded to us. We just disagree about which things are actually meant for us to do.

And as I said to windy, if you feel God is leading you to sell all you have, and go live in a "Christian Community", then that's between you and God. But, I'm going to speak up if you are reading into scripture, then try to tell everyone that we are commanded to sell all our possessions, and move to some camp.

rain wrote:
I think the questions windywherever posed are good ones for people to consider. The whole sermon on the mount was spoken to his disciples. Do you reject all of that, or are there parts you accept? How do you decide which you'll follow?

I don't reject the sermon on the mount. I don't reject anything in scripture. But, I don't follow what is said in the sermon on the mount. I do my best(and often fail) to follow the HS, and the law to Love God first, and my neighbor.

rain wrote:
Oh, I in particularly liked the comparison is Luke 14:33 with John 6:16, i.e. the link of the word 'whosover'.

Then I'm sure you'll like my response to windy, in my post to him.

rain wrote:
Also, I am reminded of Jesus' teaching in John 14:26 where Jesus says that he will send the Holy Spirit to his disciples, and the job of the Holy Spirit is to ''teach us all things, and to bring to remembrance everything I have said to you''. Why should the Holy Spirit remind us of what Jesus taught, if we aren't to practice those teachings or teach others to do the same?

Simply because as I've said before, not all of what Jesus taught them, was meant for us to do.


***edit****
Windy or rain,
Either or both can address this. I see you think we are commanded to sell our possessions, and live together in a Christian Community. You believe that because you believe Christ commanded it. I'm interested in your take on what the consequences are if we don't do what you say Christ commanded regarding this.

Thanks

I think it is important to understand that, when it is stated ( correctly) :
The bible is written FOR us BUT not written TO us.
This doesn't mean that some parts are not for us BUT that to understand what was written we have to understand WHO it was written to and WHY.
HOW would the audience hear Christ or Paul or reading Paul's letters IN Corinth or John's in Ephesus, understand what was being told to them.

We can't read the writings from a 21st century perspective because they were NOT written TO a 21st century audience.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think it is important to understand that, when it is stated ( correctly) :
The bible is written FOR us BUT not written TO us.
This doesn't mean that some parts are not for us BUT that to understand what was written we have to understand WHO it was written to and WHY.
HOW would the audience hear Christ or Paul or reading Paul's letters IN Corinth or John's in Ephesus, understand what was being told to them.

We can't read the writings from a 21st century perspective because they were NOT written TO a 21st century audience.

That's what I'm trying to say too.

When Jesus called the 12, he wanted them to leave their families, and follow him. Literally follow Jesus where he went.

Are we supposed to leave our families and follow him? Of course not. We can't follow him, because he's not here. So if we are to obey all Jesus commanded, we'd kinda be up the creek, not only without the paddle, but without the creek.

As we say all the time, context is key.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I think it is important to understand that, when it is stated ( correctly) :
The bible is written FOR us BUT not written TO us.
This doesn't mean that some parts are not for us BUT that to understand what was written we have to understand WHO it was written to and WHY.
HOW would the audience hear Christ or Paul or reading Paul's letters IN Corinth or John's in Ephesus, understand what was being told to them.

We can't read the writings from a 21st century perspective because they were NOT written TO a 21st century audience.

That's what I'm trying to say too.

When Jesus called the 12, he wanted them to leave their families, and follow him. Literally follow Jesus where he went.

Are we supposed to leave our families and follow him? Of course not. We can't follow him, because he's not here. So if we are to obey all Jesus commanded, we'd kinda be up the creek, not only without the paddle, but without the creek.

As we say all the time, context is key.

Indeed, on top of that, like James and Paul sated:
James 3:1

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.

I Corinthians 12:28
Romans 12:6

The HS and Our Lord guide us, it is to HIM that we must listen and follow what He sets for Us.

windywherever wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Nobody is saying get saved and be lazy just that nothing man can do justifies him,only through Jesus and what he did are we justified.

Hi ABCB. Thanks for sharing those thoughts. I don't think rain was suggesting that people should try to earn their salvation through their works. Maybe you are seeing something I've not seen. If so, would you mind quoting the part where he says that we should earn salvation through works?

From what I can see, he's talking about obedience to Jesus' teachings, which Jesus himself harped on a fair bit. He was quite insistent that his followers should obey his teachings. Obviously, if a person is attempting to obey God only so that he can boast about how good he is, then such behavior should be rebuked, but surely a simple suggestion that there are teachings which Jesus wants us to obey should not be rebuked.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I was addressing the points made concerning what Jesus told certian people and yes he was speaking directly to that person and their weakness

I did read your response quite carefully, but I didn't see any comments from you specifically addressing the teachings rain listed about forsaking materialism. I saw that you gave a rather nice explanation about how we should not think our good works can earn salvation. But, that's not the argument rain was making.

Do you have any comments on the contexts of the specific teachings rain listed? For example, Luke 14:33. It's not an isolated teaching. It's part of a large chunk of teaching all dealing with what it means to be a follower of Jesus. The first half of luke 14 deals with Jesus eating at a pharisees house. Then, in verse 25 there is a clear shift. He's suddenly outside where "great multitudes" were with him. We don't know who these multitudes are. Some of them are probably his disciples while, almost certainly, the majority were people who were not committed to following him but rather were gathering to hear what he had to say.

In verse 26 starts his sermon to this "great multitude" by saying, "if any man come to me..." and then proceeds to give teaching on what it means to be his follower. In verse 27 he uses that word, "whosoever", saying that anyone who does not take up his cross and "come after me" cannot be his disciple. According to the reasoning you've used this "taking up one's cross" was only meant for the followers of Jesus' day. Is that really what you believe?

Verses 28-33 comprise a parable about people who start a task but do not have what it takes to finish the job. The lesson is about "counting the cost"; being sure you know what you're getting into before you commit. And then, of course, in verse 33 he says, "so likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsakes not all that he has, cannot be my disciple". The, "so likewise" is a phrase indicating that the lesson from the previous parable, (about counting the cost) should be applied to what he is about to say. In other words, the cost of following Jesus is to forsake all material attachments. If a person is unwilling to do that then they should not even bother to start.

Next, Jesus concludes this sermon by talking about salt which loses it's taste; he says it won't be good for anything. It's like that with some of the salty teachings of Jesus; they may sting a bit when we consider how all encompassing and life changing they really are, but if we water them down they lose their power.

Confrontation of our dependence on materialism is a core teaching throughout the entire NT. Jesus gave a warning saying, "Beware of covetousness, for a person's life does not consist of the abundance of the things he can own" (Luke 12:15).

This is the context I see. I look forward to your response.

I do think rain is pushing works to be justified and this makes a mockery out of what Jesus did for us.When we become Christian we are born again and we are changed on the inside to serve God but we all don't have the same calling.The closer a person is to Jesus they will automatically be doing what God wants them to do.Obedience to Jesus's teachings will become automatic the more weput our faith in Jesus.Look if rain could justify himself by selling all he had to prove he is not covetous then why did Jesus come to save us?The fact is that we are all sinful and fall short but Jesus takes upour slack because of what he did for us. How can rain feel justified by God by giving everything he has away to prove he is not covetous while falling shortin other area as we all do?Even Apostle Paul had a thorn in the flesh he dealt with but this idea that by what we do justifies us to God or makes God love us more is bunk teaching.We cannot just do part of thelaw if we are going to live under it,in order to be justified we would have tolive a flawless life according to the law which no man has ever did except for Jesus Christ. so get this idea out of your head that you can justify yourself based on what you do. Ephesians 2:8-9 ' For by grace are ye saved through faith;and that not of yourselves:it is the gift of God:not of works lest any man should boast."

It sounds like rain is in a cult that puts him in bondage instead of the rest Jesus offers.If rain wants to do something he should put his faith in Jesus and seek him and spend time with him and he will automatically be more Christ-like than by selling everything he has trying to justify himself to God based on doing it.It will not get him brownie points with God and will put him in bondage.

Another thing to consider is the Christian church did not start until the day of Pentecost after several things Jesus said would happen so that before the church there was no Christianity it finally came into being at God's appointed time based on everything Jesus did to build the church.

Hi Paul,

So the teaching from Jesus to his disciples about ''loving one another the same as I have loved you'', IS one that you believe we should follow? I too agree with that, but I am wondering how you arrived at that conclusion, seeing as (according to your interpretation) he was just speaking to his disciples?

Jesus never taught his disciples to do something that he himself did not do, and that includes forsaking all. And that's where I agree with the point that windywherever said, and that is forsaking materialism is very much about loving God and others, the way that Jesus loved us. We're not free to love God if there are things we are attached to in this world.

The verses from Matthew 25 are good, and I agree that Jesus will separate us according to what we have or have not done. However, one only needs to look at the rest of the his teachings to see that there are other things we will be judged on to, e.g. fearfulness/laziness Matthew 25:26. Do you think just because Jesus does not mention lying, theft, adultery, fornication, blasphemy, greed, pride, that we will not be judged on these too, when clearly in the book of Revelation these ARE reasons given for how judgment will be based e.g. Revelation 21:6-8. Or how about when Jesus said in Matthew 12:35-37, that we'll be held accountable for all our words, and that ''by our words we shall be justified, and by our words we shall be condemned''? You see, there is definitely MORE to the picture, isn't there?

But the bottom line again, is Jesus said in John 12:47-48, that it is HIS teachings i.e. the WORD that he has spoken that will judge us in the last days.

All of his teachings ARE good news, and that includes forsaking all. It can be scary to let go of what we hold onto so tightly, but God has something infinitely better for us in return. Like Jesus said to his disciples in Luke 18: 28-30, anyone who leaves family, possessions and lands, for him and for the gospel will not fail to receive manifold in this life, and in the world to come everlasting life.

Paul wrote:While CHOOSING to not work MAY be an option for some ( very few), even Paul and the apostles worked.
Even Christ worked ( up into the point he started His ministry).
To work is NOT to be materialist.
To value materials things OVER God is to be materialist.

Hi Paul. I think there may be a misunderstanding here. I never suggested we should not work. The issue is about who (or what) we work for. In Matthew 6:24 Jesus talks about two masters. He says one is God and the other is mammon. Mammon is a word used to describe money and the things money can buy.

Jesus wants us to stop working for the sake of gaining material things and start working for the sake of loving our brothers. We show that we value material things over God when we decide that we will not help our brother unless he pays us for that help. I hope this helps to clarify my position.

Rain proceeded to try to make the argument from scripture, by adding to what scripture actually says. Rain said that Jesus gave instructions about "our" riches, when the text does not say that.

I think there may be a bit of legalism happening here. I agree that the word "our" is not found in the Luke 14:33 verse, but what we're trying to do is to understand the spirit of Jesus teachings. What is the purpose of Jesus asking people to forsake their attachments to materialism? It sounds like you've taken the "I do it in my heart approach" which could be fair enough. But what I've noticed is that the "in my heart" teaching seems to have become a loophole for millions of Christians which they use to avoid change. It's so easy to talk about theoretical spiritual discipline. I think this is why Jesus gave a command to actually do it.

You've not yet addressed the teaching where Jesus tells his disciples to go into all the world teaching other people to do as they themselves were taught to do. As for the forsaking of material possessions and living in community, we can see the disciples following Jesus' last instruction to them by teaching thousands of new Christians to forsake their material attachments and to share all things in common. Sharing is a fundamental value of the Kingdom of Heaven. Letting go is another.

If you want to take a message from that text, and apply it to us, the message would probably be to seek things of God first, and not be distracted by material possessions.

Thanks for sharing this. I've very happy to hear that you're willing to consider these teachings from a point of view which you'd normally not agree with. Could you please clarify for me what you think would constitute being "distracted by material possessions?" Thanks.

Rick wrote:So, the "whosoever" is the same in both verses. But the qualifier "you" or hymōn, is not found in John 3:16.

I think this could be another case of legalism rather than getting the spirit behind the teachings. In luke 14:33 the context is that Jesus was talking to a "great multitude". This could have been hundreds of people. The "you" is obviously plural in meaning. Using the example from the discussion rules I posted, the "you" is obviously not meant to be only for the people who happened to be reading the forum on that particular day when the rules were posted. It's a "you" meant for anyone who wants to participate in forum discussions here. It would be legalistic for a person to argue that the rules must be posted afresh for him each time he visits so that he can be certain the rule is meant for him.

I believe you are using a similar logic when it comes to Jesus' teachings on the root of all evil. It would be legalistic to expect Jesus to give a new personal revelation to each person in the world about forsaking materialism when he's already done so to his disciples whom he commanded to pass on the teaching to their disciples and their disciples pass the teaching on to their disciples etc.

Rick wrote:And second, Matthew 7:12 is a basic rule, consistent throughout the NT, that is found inherent in the command to Love God, and our neighbor as ourself. Matthew 7:12 is found throughout the NT.

Forsaking all is also a consistent theme throughout the NT. There are so many verses which talk about it; not only possessions, but friends, family, respectability and even our own lives. Anyway, forsaking is a method for applying the golden rule (i.e. do to others what you'd have them do for you). For example, lets pretend that you need help, but you don't have the money to pay for that help. Wouldn't you be happy if the person decided to help you for free, just because you need the help? Now you can understand the position of the majority of the world. Or maybe you could argue that the example is flawed because you DO have the money to supply all your needs so you don't need to rely on charity from another person. But isn't that a problem, too? Money gives us the freedom to NOT rely on one another for help. I realize the average Christian probably doesn't think about it this way, but that's exactly what the atheist uses money for. He doesn't need faith. He doesn't need to be thankful for food, or rain, or sunshine or life. He's doesn't need to trust an invisible God for his daily bread. He's got money.

When it comes to who we really trust for our daily bread there's not much practical difference between the 9-5 atheist and the 9-5 Christian.

And second, the idea of selling all we own, and living in a "Christian Community", certainly isn't found throughout the NT.

From what I can see, rain posted several verses from the NT about forsaking all. You commented on Luke 12:33 and Luke 14:33 basically saying you believe you are an exception to the teaching about dealing with materialism. What did you think about the examples from Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:34-37 which show the disciples teaching thousands of new Christians to forsake all?

I quoted Luke 12:15 where Jesus warns his followers to beware of covetousness because life is more than the things we own. You didn't comment on that.

There is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus; clearly a teaching about our relationship to money (Luke 16:19-30).

There is the parable about the sower; the seeds which fell in the thorns were choked by the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches (Matthew 13:22).

Then there is the parable of the rich man who built bigger and bigger barns to store more of his wealth (Luke 12:18-21). God called him a fool.

In Matthew 6:19 Jesus says not to store treasure on earth, but rather treasure in Heaven. In Luke 12:33 he says we get treasure in Heaven by selling what we have and using it to help the poor. You say this teaching only applied to the disciples of Jesus' time, but you can't really on the same "you" argument that you do for Luke 14:33 because he doesn't say "you". In fact, the record shows that he's talking to an "innumerable" crowd in this context.

In John 6:27 Jesus admonished the people who came looking for him because they were only interested in the food rather than the truth. He tells them to stop working for the food that spoils, but rather to work the works of God. This is nearly identical to what he said in Matthew 6:24-34 where he tells his followers to stop working for money and the things money can buy (i.e. mammon) and to start working for the kingdom of Heaven first.

He says we should not allow worry about food and clothing stop us from stepping out in faith. He says all the world seeks after these things, but that we should not be like them. We are called aside. Set apart. Born again. Transformed by the renewing of our minds. We are meant to be different. We can't do that when we continue living by all the same values of the world.

This them carries on when, in Luke 10:4-7 he gives his followers instructions on how to apply these teachings about seeking God's Kingdom and God taking care of them. He tells them to take nothing for their journey, no food, not extra shoes or cloak etc and that they should eat whatever people share with them along the way. Later, in Luke 22:35 Jesus references this same situation by asking them, "when I sent you without anything, did you lack anything you needed"? and they answered, "nothing".

Jesus performed this experiment with them because he wanted them to see that his teachings were real and they should be applied in practical life. They are not just "in my heart" teachings. They carry real value, but only when they are practiced.

Anyway, I could carry on with dozens more examples of this theme about materialism but I hope by now you'd be willing to acknowledge that this issue of materialism IS a consistent theme throughout the new testament.

I look forward to your response.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I do think rain is pushing works to be justified and this makes a mockery out of what Jesus did for us

Hi Abel (hope you don't mind me shortening your nic). Would you mind posting some quotes from rain's post where you think he is teaching that we should earn our salvation through works? If you really are seeing something I'm not seeing, then looking at his actual words will help me to better see your perspective. Thanks.

Abel wrote:When we become Christian we are born again and we are changed on the inside to serve God but we all don't have the same calling.

I also agree that not all Christians have the same calling. For example, God may call one Christian to evangelize in Brazil while he calls another to evangelize in China. He may call one to work with orphans while he calls another to teach English to adult refugees. There can be thousands of different callings for Christians.

However, this issue of our relationship to money is a fundamental part of what it means to be a Christian. I don't think it's an accurate representation of the "different callings" argument to say that God calls some Christians to deal with their materialism while he excuses others.

What do you think about this issue of materialism? Do you have any thoughts on why Jesus would make these comments about forsaking all etc? Did you see all those examples I just posted in response to Rick's post? I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on some of those examples.

Windy or rain,

Before we continue with this discussion, you need to address something I brought up, that you have yet to answer.

Do you two belong to the same Christian Community, or whatever term you give it?

This needs to be answered. If you two come to this forum at the same time, preaching the same beliefs, it makes you look like you have an agenda.

Thank you for your cooperation.

HI Rick,

With regards to your response about me using the word OUR (in relation to possessions) and the word YOU not being used in John 3 but being used in Luke 14, I really think you're straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. Out of your own mouth you have said that his disciples were taught to forsake family and possessions:

When Jesus called the 12, he wanted them to leave their families, and follow him. Literally follow Jesus where he went.

And Jesus clearly teaches his disciples to ''Go into all the world, teaching people to obey all things that I have commanded YOU''. There's that hymōn again This verse has been repeatedly mentioned throughout this discussion as evidence that Jesus does want his disciples to teach others to do what he taught them to do. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, as I feel this verse is significant?

Are we supposed to leave our families and follow him? Of course not. We can't follow him, because he's not here. So if we are to obey all Jesus commanded, we'd kinda be up the creek, not only without the paddle, but without the creek.

To be honest, I am a bit shocked that you think we can't follow Jesus because he is not here! He is here!. Jesus said he he would send his Holy Spirit to remind us of everything Jesus said and to lead us into all truth. We follow Jesus by following the Holy Spirit. And again, Jesus that it is his ''WORDS that are spirit and life'', i.e. the Holy Spirit is his teachings.

In response to your question, yes, windy and I practice the same teachings that we're sharing here.

Hi rain,

Before I address windy's much longer post, I'll respond to yours.

rain wrote:
With regards to your response about me using the word OUR (in relation to possessions) and the word YOU not being used in John 3 but being used in Luke 14, I really think you're straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. Out of your own mouth you have said that his disciples were taught to forsake family and possessions:

RickD wrote:
When Jesus called the 12, he wanted them to leave their families, and follow him. Literally follow Jesus where he went.


rain wrote:
And Jesus clearly teaches his disciples to ''Go into all the world, teaching people to obey all things that I have commanded YOU''. There's that hymōn again This verse has been repeatedly mentioned throughout this discussion as evidence that Jesus does want his disciples to teach others to do what he taught them to do. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this, as I feel this verse is significant?

Yes. Jesus did tell the disciples to do as he commanded them to do. I have no problem with what scripture says here. My problem lies with your interpretation of scripture. More importantly, your eisegesis that leads you to believe what the point of your OP is. That all Christians are commanded by Christ, to sell all of their possessions, and join a commune in the middle of Africa, or wherever.

rain wrote:
To be honest, I am a bit shocked that you think we can't follow Jesus because he is not here! He is here!. Jesus said he he would send his Holy Spirit to remind us of everything Jesus said and to lead us into all truth. We follow Jesus by following the Holy Spirit. And again, Jesus that it is his ''WORDS that are spirit and life'', i.e. the Holy Spirit is his teachings.

Now you are reading into what I actually said, the same way you add to scripture something IT doesn't say. I never said we can't follow Jesus. I took the scripture that you used, to show that it doesn't mean what you are making it say. Let's look at it again.

Jesus was physically present with the 12, when he called them to leave their lives behind to follow him. So, I'm saying that when he told them to follow him, he meant to literally, and physically follow him. At that time, Jesus had not left. The Holy Spirit had not yet come to indwell believers. He (The HS) came after Jesus' ascension. So again, if you are taking Jesus' words to the 12 to follow him, WHEN HE WAS PHYSICALLY WITH THEM, to mean that Jesus actually meant for us to follow him by following the HS, THEN YOU ARE READING SOMETHING INTO THAT TEXT THAT ISN'T THERE.

To get back to the point of your OP, you are telling us that all believers are commanded to sell all of our possessions and follow Jesus, because of your belief you have by misinterpreting scripture.

And, I have a problem when someone comes along and says we need to do something that Christ or scripture never told us we need to do.

I hope you can see understand where misinterpreting scripture to make commands that don't exist, can lead to. Ever heard of a cult?

In response to your question, yes, windy and I practice the same teachings that we're sharing here.

Thank you for your honesty.