Did Jesus say you must forsake all?

[Mithrae]

[JehovahsWitness]

These are just a few of the passages in which Jesus' teaching to forsake all seem to be clearly expressed.

If Christians were to literally give away everything they possed they would have to walk about naked, since clothes and and food are possessions. Jesus taught by example and didn't just say but showed his disciples what he meant, yet Jesus possessed clothes and wore them (he evidently even possessed a coat of good quality). Even if Christians were to live entirely from the charity of others, when someone gives you something (food or clothing) it passes from their possession to your own.

Further Jesus told his disciples that if someone asking for our outer garment (or coat) they should give their inner garment too. He made no mention of giving away their sandles scalf and donkey. Evidently Peter owned a house even after becoming a disciple, the bible speaks of female disciples of Jesus supporting his ministry from their own resources, the donkey Jesus rode into Jerusalem was probably owned by a disciple. Jesus confinded his mother, Mary into the care of his friend John who took her to HIS home and the women that anointed Jesus body evidently had enough money to buy spices and kept those spices in their own possession long enough to use them for what they wanted rather than to buy them and immediately give them away. There is therefore ample evidence Jesus himself and his disciples kept at least some of their possessions and did not literally give everything they owned away.

Since the disciples and Jesus didn't walk around naked, they did not give away everything they possed; reasonable people capable of critical thinking conclude that Jesus was not saying that all his disciples had to give away literally everything they owned.

RELATED POSTS

Should Jesus words about abandoning "all things" be taken literally?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 89#p908689

Did Jesus stipulate that all his followers should renounce ownership of all material possessions?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 20#p835720

Did Jesus expect his disciples to give up absolutely everything they owned?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 61#p908161

Would the "Acts model" allow for Christian ownership of houses?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p980613

Is there proof JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES are the religion that put spiritual things ahead of working for money?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 85#p909585

Did Jesus command all his disciples renounce employment and all private ownership.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p980601

To read more please go to other posts related to...

CHRISTIANITY , MONEY & WEALTH and ...CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS

[Elijah John]

These are just a few of the passages in which Jesus' teaching to forsake all seem to be clearly expressed.

If Christians were to literally give away everything they possed they would have to walk about naked, since clothes and and food are possessions. Jesus taught by example and didn't just say but showed his disciples what he meant, yet Jesus possessed clothes and wore them (he evidently even possessed a coat of good quality). Even if Christians were to live entirely from the charity of others, when someone gives you something (food or clothing) it passes from their possession to your own.

Further Jesus told his disciples that if someone asking for our outer garment (or coat) they should give their inner garment too. He made no mention of giving away their sandles scalf and donkey. Evidently Peter owned a house even after becoming a disciple, the bible speaks of female disciples of Jesus supporting his ministry from their own resources, the donkey Jesus rode into Jerusalem was probably owned by a disciple. Jesus confinded his mother, Mary into the care of his friend John who took her to HIS home and the women that anointed Jesus body evidently had enough money to buy spices and kept those spices in their own possession long enough to use them for what they wanted rather than to buy them and immediately give them away. There is therefore ample evidence Jesus himself and his disciples kept at least some of their possessions and did not literally give everything they owned away.

Since the disciples and Jesus didn't walk around naked, they did not give away everything they possed; reasonable people capable of critical thinking conclude that Jesus was not saying that all his disciples had to give away literally everything they owned.

Seems that Jesus then, once again, was being hyperbolic in his statements, poetic and not literal.

Or, another possibility, (if Jesus was being literal) is that here, and in other statements he was preaching an "interim ethic", suitable perhaps for the impending arrival of the apocalypse*, but clearly not practical for the long run.

(*which Jesus, Paul, the author of Hebrews and some others seems to have believed would occur in the lifetime of the apostles)

[JehovahsWitness]

Or, another possibility, (is Jesus was being literal) is that here, and in other statements he was preaching an "interim ethic"

Definition of interim ethics
an interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus as principles enunciated for governing the conduct of the disciples during the anticipated brief span of time before the coming of the second advent and the passing of the terrestrial world

It seems to me you have used an oxymoron. If I understand correctly "interim ethics" are principles, principles are NOT literal or absolute. Saying Jesus was here teaching a literal principle is at the most an oxymoron and at the very least redundant since even if the two could be combined you would still have to be NAKED while extracting the principle of your nudity. And since as I pointed out in my[post #2 above, neither Jesus nor his first century disciples gave literally everything they possesed away, it seems more reasonable to concude Jesus was not speaking literally and in the absolute.

Thanks,


JW

To read more please go to other posts related to...

CHRISTIANITY , MONEY & WEALTH and ... JW's FINANCES

[Mithrae]

Seems that Jesus then, once again, was being hyperbolic in his statements, poetic and not literal.

Or, another possibility, (if Jesus was being literal) is that here, and in other statements he was preaching an "interim ethic", suitable perhaps for the impending arrival of the apocalypse*, but clearly not practical for the long run.

(*which Jesus, Paul, the author of Hebrews and some others seems to have believed would occur in the lifetime of the apostles)

This idea of a now-defunct interim ethic doesn't make sense to me: If this teaching to forsake all and not worry about one's future upkeep was not practical, it would be impractical even for a few weeks or months, never mind decades or a whole lifetime. But if somehow it did work for decade after decade - the gospels were written some thirty to sixty years after Jesus' death - there's no very obvious reason it would suddenly stop being working some time after that.

It's easy to dismiss some singular verse or passage as not literal, but when the same message is taught again and again in several different ways by multiple different gospel authors, such a view starts to look very suspect. Jesus himself explicitly said on multiple occasions that his teaching was hard - in fact, impossible for mere men (Mark 10:27) - so assuming that because it's hard he didn't really mean what he said would be nonsensical.

[Mithrae]

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Everything in any statement ever made needs to be understood in context; whether at work or in an ancient document.

If the earliest literature depicting Jesus showed that Jesus renounced everything including clothing (i.e., he was a nudist that never ate) then it would be legitimate to take his statements literally to the point of discrete materials; but this is not the context. Jesus elsewhere allows--indeed, commands--his disciples to take on their journey certain belongings.

The best interpretation is that people are to hold their possessions lightly; to be aware that they are gifts from God and do not define them, and may very well disappear.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 6 by Mithrae]

Are you suggesting that Jesus never possessed any clothes or food?

He sent the apostles out without a purse or coins or even a change of clothes

♦ Yes, but did they posses the clothes they did wear? If so, they had possessions which they hadn't given away.

Obviously Jesus never said that clothes or food or even money are evil in themselves ...

♦ There is no "obviously" about it, if Jesus words are to be taken literally and in the absolute food and clothes are possessions. Food is even worse because if you EAT it you cannot then obey instructions to give it away, so the act of eating the food in your possession becomes an act of disobedience. You take the words literally or you don't, you cannot have you cake and eat it (pun indended).

Maybe I misunderstood your point, I thought you were arguing for a literal interpreation of Jesus words and that nobody was to have ANY possessions. Is that not what you are saying?

So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.

♦ You were the one that highlighted Jesus words above. Does ALL mean ALL or not? If its literally "all" then Jesus was a hypocrit because he had in his possession a good quality coat when he died and he hadn't given it away.

[JehovahsWitness]

In fact there were even some followers of Jesus such as Mary and Martha of Bethany who seemingly continued living in their own home,

Why would Jesus love a family that were disobeying his explicit command to give everything they owned away? Just because someone is hospitable does that negate the fact that you have a possession of a house?

The lesson seems to be one of constantly letting go of whatever possessions come your way [...] rather than refusing to accept them in the first place.

♦ Why would you accept something if your calling meant to have no possessions? Wouldn't it be faster not to accept anything ?

♦ So you are saying a christian can have possessions as long as they were constantly giving them away. How long could you keep a possession? 24 hours? 48? A year? A decade?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

Everything in any statement ever made needs to be understood in context; whether at work or in an ancient document.

If the earliest literature depicting Jesus showed that Jesus renounced everything including clothing (i.e., he was a nudist that never ate) then it would be legitimate to take his statements literally to the point of discrete materials; but this is not the context. Jesus elsewhere allows--indeed, commands--his disciples to take on their journey certain belongings.

The best interpretation is that people are to hold their possessions lightly; to be aware that they are gifts from God and do not define them, and may very well disappear.

If you gave up 99% of what you owned in January and followed through with your intention to give up the other 1% (and more) in February - and then gave up even more in March, because people just keep giving you stuff! - then it would be completely accurate and literal to say that you have given up all, forsaken everything you owned.

What you and JW seem to be trying to do is argue that because Jesus was wearing clothes in March, he had not 'really' forsaken everything and so followers of Jesus are okay to own a car and house with nice furnishings and appliances as long as they can imagine themselves giving them up in their heart. As far as I can tell that's not understanding the passage in context, it's just wildly distorting what is clearly written there. The context of that verse is the warning that would-be followers must count the cost, knowing that it would likely to be far too high for many people; and that would-be followers whose lives are not clearly and radically different from others around them are like salt without taste and fit only to be cast aside. The context of that verse does not provide any reassurance that 'give up all your possessions' was just some kind of meaningless hyperbole; on the contrary, the bits both before and after it provide even more strenuous warning about the deadly seriousness, in Luke's view, of what Jesus was teaching!