Evidence for God from Science

melanie wrote:Windy as far as I see it, your sitting in your comfy chair, enjoying the luxury of a computer with first world access to the Internet preaching to others about sacrifice. I think it's a pretty big error to think that because you threw it all in a bucket and divvied it out amongst yourselves that you have forsaken all attachment to material things.
The heart as you said can be very deceitful

rain wrote:

This is the closest you have come to answering the above question, yet you still side step it. The issue is not whether Jesus told his disciples to do as he commanded them to do, but whether Jesus told his disciples to teach OTHERS to do as he commanded THEM to do. Can you see the difference? It would be good to hear your thoughts on that



Rick wrote:

Ok. I see what you're saying, and why you think I'm avoiding your question. I apologize. I wasn't avoiding. Yes, Jesus told his disciples to teach others to do as he commanded. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with what you choose to believe Jesus commanded his disciples to teach others. Specifically, the idea that we are commanded to abandon all money and possessions, and go live in a commune somewhere.



Hi Rick,

Okay, so we're in agreement that Jesus commanded his disciples to teach others to do as he commanded them. So, what's your struggle with applying that to Luke 14:33? Jesus clearly taught his disciples to do this. We see them doing it in Acts, so where's the problem?

Rain wrote:
You say your problem is with me choosing what to believe Jesus commanded his disciples to teach others, but I'm just choosing to believe what Jesus said in Matthew 28:20, i.e. choosing to DO what he commanded his disciples to do. My argument is; Jesus taught his disciples to do this, he told them to teach others to do what he taught then to do, I choose to believe that he meant this. You however, read Jesus saying ''teach others to obey all things that I have commanded you'', and choose to believe that Jesus did not mean all things. Please provide some teachings from Jesus that suggest that we can pick and choose what to do from the things he taught/commanded? Thanks.

RickD wrote:
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that I and others here, are choosing which commands to follow. And you ARE NOT choosing which commands to follow, because you follow all the commands that Jesus gave his disciples? Is that accurate?


rain wrote:
Aren't you (and others) choosing which commands he gave to follow?

rain wrote:
In response to your question, based on what I have shared in my posts, what commands that Jesus gave his disciples do you think I chose to not try to follow?

Romans 14New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Principles of Conscience
14 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the [a]servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person [c]regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, [d]does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.

10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written,

“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall [e]give praise to God.”
12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.

13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way. 14 I know and am convinced [f]in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be [g]spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then [h]we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. 20 Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. 22 The faith which you have, have [j]as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

to set apart, separate

to separate one's self, withdraw one's self from anyone

to take leave of, bid farewell to

to renounce, forsake

Utleys, You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series wrote:
▣ "and had all things in common" This early experiment in "community" was not successful (cf. Acts 4:32 to Acts 5:11). It was not meant to be a universal principle, but an attempt at a loving, mutually supportive community or faith. This is a good example that not everything recorded in the Bible is meant to be universally implemented! These early believers had a great love for one another. Oh, that we could regain this love and sense of the presence and power of God among us (cf. John 17:11; John 17:21-23)!!

Acts 2:46 "with one mind" The early church was characterized by this unity of purpose (cf. Acts 1:14; Acts 2:46; Acts 4:24; Acts 5:12). This is not to say that they agreed on everything, but that their hearts and minds were knit together in kingdom priorities instead of personal preferences or agendas.

▣ "in the temple" They probably met in "Solomon's portico" (cf Acts 3:11; Acts 5:12). Jesus taught there (cf. John 10:23). Solomon's Portico or porch was a covered colonnade along the east side of the outer court of the Gentiles in Herod's Temple (cf. Josephus' Antiq. 15.11.3). Rabbis taught there. People regularly gathered there to hear teaching.

Notice the early church attended the temple and probably the local synagogues until the rabbis instituted a curse formula (about A.D. 70), which forced synagogue members to curse Jesus. This caused the break between the church and Judaism. The early believers maintained their weekly worship, but also met on Sunday to commemorate Jesus' resurrection. Remember, Jesus Himself met with the disciples, three Sunday nights in a row.

▣ "breaking bread from house to house" If "breaking bread" was a technical designation for the Lord's Supper (cf. Luke 22:19 and esp. in contexts of agape meals [1Co 11:17-22; 2Pe 2:13-14; Jude 1:12] in the early church, ex. Acts20:7), then this refers to daily communion in local homes (but it must be admitted that it is also used of a regular meal in Luke 24:30; Luke 24:35). Be careful of your dogmatic denominational traditions about the when, where, frequency, and form of the Lord's Supper. The heart is the key!

Biblical Illustrator Commentary wrote:Communism

What about this so-called communism in the early Church? What was it in nature and extent? The passage describing the community of goods is critical. Social reformers, not always Christian, point to this as the ideal state from which the Church has wandered

1. The arrangement was purely voluntary. What any man put in was still his. The sin of Ananias was not that he had kept back a portion of his estate by fraud, but that he lied about it. It was still in his power after the sale as before. The community of property flowed out of the new spiritual life. (See Acts 4:32-37.) “In point of fact, their experiment was simply the assertion of the right of every man to do as he chooses with his own; and they chose to live together and help each other. It was a fraternal stock company for mutual aid and protection. No man was bound to come into it unless he wished; but if he did come in, he was bound to act honestly.”

2. It was a spiritual result, and not a social experiment. It cannot be explained except on the spiritual basis. It must be studied in its true setting. The Brook Farm, “Utopia,” and all kindred institutions, have been social experiments. Bellamy’s “Looking Backward” Society is allied with them. They have arisen for lack of the Holy Spirit. This sprung up spontaneously because of Pentecost.

3. The community of goods seems to have been a community of use, not ownership. Nobody said that aught that he possessed was his own. They were of one heart. The circumstances were peculiar. Many of the people were away from home. All had to be cared for. No one should suffer.

4. The plan was local. Jerusalem was the only city where it was tried. No trace of it is to be found in any ether Church. It evidently did not commend itself to other churches as a wise plan. The other churches took up collections just as now when a case of need was presented. (See 1Co 16:2; 2Co 9:6-7.)

5. It was temporary. It lasted while the circumstances in which it arose continued.

6. It did not relieve poverty. It was not devised for that purpose. Many writers insist upon seeing a close connection between this incident and the subsequent poverty in Jerusalem. Thus Meyer: “And this community of goods at Jerusalem helps to explain the great and general poverty of that Church. It is probable that the apostles were prevented by the very experience acquired in Jerusalem from advising or introducing it elsewhere.” Thus Gulliver: “Under such sublime inspirations it is easy to see that a communism, impossible to ordinary human nature, might temporarily flourish. But it is as easy to see that it would gradually settle to the level of ordinary motive, and would be subjected to the disturbances of inevitable inequalities in capacity and industry, as well as in piety.

The Plymouth Pilgrims were, perhaps, the most single-minded men of modern times. Yet it was not till the community of lands and goods which obtained in the early years of their settlement gave place to farms in severalty, and to private property protected by law, that the annually recurring danger of absolute starvation in their colony disappeared. The lesson of such a history is, therefore, not solely the lesson of Christian consecration. It includes the utility and the sacredness of the personal control of property. It places before us the problem of combining the largest Christian benevolence with the strict maintenance of proprietary rights.”

7. It was not modern communism. Says Gerok: “That holy community of goods proceeded from love to the poor; but that which is now proclaimed is the result of a hatred to the rich.” And Van [lesbian]: “Of late years the communistic doctrine has begun to present itself in another shape. It has laid aside the red cap and put on the white cravat. It invites serious and polite inquiry. It quotes Scripture and claims to be the friend, the near relative, of Christianity. So altered is its aspect that preachers of religion are discovering that it has good points, and patting it on the back somewhat timidly, as one might pat a converted wolf who had offered his services as watch-dog.” There is a fundamental and absolute difference between the doctrine of the Bible and the doctrine of the communiser.

For the Bible tells me that I must deal my bread to the hungry; while the communiser tells the hungry that he may take it for himself, and if he begins with bread there is no reason why he should draw the line at cake. The Bible teaches that envy is a sin; the communiser declares that it is the new virtue which is to regenerate society.

The communiser maintains that every man who is born has a right to live; but the Bible says that if a man will not work neither shall he eat; and without eating life is difficult.

The communiser holds up equality of condition as the ideal of Christianity; but Christ never mentions it. He tells us that we shall have the poor always with us, and charges us never to forget, despise, or neglect them. Christianity requires two things from every man that believes in it: first, to acquire his property by just and righteous means; and, secondly, to look not only on his own things, but also on the things of others. (W. F. McDowell.)

Storyteller wrote:I have very few material possessions and I would give them all up tomorrow if needed (apart from my books )
I work for myself, running a bookshop and I take pride in it. Again, I would walk away from it tomorrow if needed.
I earn enough, with Government help, to live. I have very few luxuries and I donate to my church and charities.
If I can help anybody, in any way, I will, and do.

Have I forsaken all? No. Could I? Not if I want to provide for my daughter.

I am not well versed in Scripture but from what I have read, I just don't think Christ meant what you think He meant.
If you believe what you thinks He means, why do you have internet? For example. You dont need it. (and tgat isnt a dig, its a genuine question)

Storyteller wrote:I have very few material possessions and I would give them all up tomorrow if needed (apart from my books )
I work for myself, running a bookshop and I take pride in it. Again, I would walk away from it tomorrow if needed.
I earn enough, with Government help, to live. I have very few luxuries and I donate to my church and charities.
If I can help anybody, in any way, I will, and do.

Have I forsaken all? No. Could I? Not if I want to provide for my daughter.

I am not well versed in Scripture but from what I have read, I just don't think Christ meant what you think He meant.
If you believe what you thinks He means, why do you have internet? For example. You dont need it. (and tgat isnt a dig, its a genuine question)

Mallz wrote:
To know everything has been given to you do to His work and His will is to give up and sell everything. Do you feel like you own something? You shouldn't. Not even your own life. It doesn't belong to you. It belongs to Him.