Such a small sacrifice...

[Willum]

Mithrae quoted this popular NT drama...

Seems to me he and his immediate followers answered quite clearly what kind of love leads to salvation:

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,� he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?�

18 “Why do you call me good?�Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.19You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’�

20“Teacher,� he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.�

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,�he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.�


Acts 2:44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Assuming it is true, selling all your property and possessions doesn't seem like such a big sacrifice for the Kingdom of Heaven, does it? How many believers on the site follow Jesus' guidance?

[JehovahsWitness]

.. Anything more materialistic than the Acts model cannot be justified ....

ARE THE CHRISTIANS IN ACTS SPOKEN OF AS HAVING THEIR OWN HOUSES?

ACT 21:8

The next day we left and came to Caes·a·reʹa, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelizer,

ACT 21:8

He [Peter] went to the house of Mary the mother of John who was called Mark,+ where quite a few were gathered together and were praying ...

(compare 1 Cor 16:19, Philemon 2)

I would say that ... these other verses are just a simpler way of saying "the house which used to be the private possession of Mary" or "the communal home in which Philip was the most prominent resident."

Unfortunately for your theory, the bible does not say this and there is nothing in the text which suggests this was the case. When the possessive adjective ("my" "your" "her/his") is present it is to indicate possession; and with regard to land and property ownership is implicit. It would be for the writer to counteract the obvious (especially as, in these cases it would have represented such a radical departure from the cultural and relgious norm).

If the properties had passed from private to communal ownership* "their house" , "..the house of the Corinthian/Jerusalem congregation" or some other indication of communal ownership would be in order. In the absence of any contextual support, it is a a gross liberty to depart so far from the plain reading of the text.

* I'm not sure if there was in fact any legal provision for such a thing at the time

JW

[Mithrae]

I would say that ... these other verses are just a simpler way of saying "the house which used to be the private possession of Mary" or "the communal home in which Philip was the most prominent resident."

Unfortunately for your theory, the bible does not say this and there is nothing in the text which suggests this was the case.

Okay, so you've grabbed some scissors and excised the last verses in the second and fourth chapters of Acts. No contradictions or errors in your Book, and most importantly no example or command that one should relinquish personal possessions

When the possessive adjective ("my" "your" "her/his") is present it is to indicate possession; and with regard to land and property ownership is implicit. It would be for the writer to counteract the obvious (especially as, in these cases it would have represented such a radical departure from the cultural and relgious norm).

'Implicit' is a good way to admit that it doesn't really say what you want while emphasizing how much you want it to. When was the last time you heard someone say "Bob and Cheryl invited us over for dinner at their landlord's house that they're renting" or a schoolkid ask "Can I go over to Billy's parent's house to play?" The historical norm is that landowners tend to be in the minority; in cities like Ostia and imperial Rome itself it's estimated that as little as 5 or 10 percent of the population lived in private housing... and even in those houses, most of the residents were not the owner!

Perhaps you happen to be one of the privileged few (even today) who actually owns a home, but projecting a privileged perspective into what you imagine must have been "obvious" to ancient readers and to Luke himself - even though he'd already written exactly the opposite of what you're claiming - is not a particularly compelling argument. Though if that were the case, I suppose it might invite some sympathy for a reluctance to acknowledge what Jesus taught: “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!�