Mithrae wrote:
I can see how it might be taken that way but no, I'm highlighting an important point. It is indeed a flimsy argument to point to a story in the first chapter of Mark - the first week or so after Peter met Jesus, well before even Levi had joined them…
Again, where are you getting the idea this event in Mark was in “the first week or so after Peter met Jesus�? Matthew’s calling is certainly not a concrete upper limit for placing the event within a week. We don’t know precisely when Matthew was called. It may have been a few days later, it may have been a few months later. And Mark certainly betrays no precise timelines of the event in question. And why is the “first week� argument significant anyway? What’s the point?
…and not only assume that the home Peter and Andrew and perhaps Peter's mother-in-law lived in was under the private ownership of Peter (and Andrew...?)…
This is hardly an
assumption. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all explicitly state it was the home of Peter. You haven't provided a lick of evidence that suggests otherwise.
…but also assume that it remained his private property despite his explicit claim to have left everything to follow Jesus and never returning to permanent residence in Capernaum again...
But that claim to have left everything does not imply he liquidated all his assets. Nor does it necessarily imply a permanent abandoning of Peter’s family and home. It can simply mean he left and went away for a time. This principle of leaving one’s family and home with the intention of returning is reflected in the parables of Jesus.
�It is like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert. Therefore, be on the alert—for you do not know when the master of the house is coming…�- Mark 13: 34-35
That word for leaving is
ἀφι�ημι. It’s the same word Peter uses in Mark 10:28. In the parable of the man who left his home to go away on a journey it is presumed he will return.
On this point of homelessness. Jesus, himself, did not seem to be homeless.
�And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, “What do you seek?� They said to Him, “Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?� He said to them, “Come, and you will see.� So they came and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.� – John 1:38-39
Or was Jesus "staying" in an alley and they all just hung out there for day?
…all in the name of trying to prove that when Jesus said to forsake all, sell your possessions, don't lay up earthly treasures and so on he didn't really mean what he said!
Oh Jesus meant what he said. He just didn’t mean what you think he meant. He didn’t mean that in order to be his disciple one
must (immediately, eventually?) sell everything one owns, quit one’s job, abandon one’s responsibilities as a husband and father, and effectively become a homeless beggar sleeping in doorways. That’s the absurd picture you are painting of Jesus’ expectation of what it takes to be a true disciple. It’s a picture that Jesus himself did not embody. It’s just not supported by the evidence found in the actions of Jesus and his disciples.
The trouble is that you are pulling pithy scriptures out of the text and employing an overly literalistic reading. That’s always problematic. For example, take the following statement by Jesus where he said,
�If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it� (John 14:14). Now, even with such a broad universal statement you intuitively understand there’s some contextual restrictions right? I mean you don’t think Jesus literally meant you can ask Jesus to do
anything and he will be obliged to do it, right? I mean what if I were to ask of Jesus to commit a sin or do something contrary to God’s nature? What if asked Jesus to no longer exist? And therein lies the problem: context.
After all there certainly is a chance that the house was Peter's personal property and a much slimmer, but still real possibility that by reminding Jesus "we have left all and followed You" he meant "we've got our property and wealth back home, but congratulate us for not currently residing there."
More like, “Hey, Jesus, isn’t the sacrifice we have made of leaving our families and homes to follow you not worth something?�
But you're trying to use this implausible guesswork as a basis for 'interpreting' other passages which on face value are pretty clear in their meaning. So I think it is worth recognizing and trying to bear in mind that you really don't want those passages of Jesus' teaching to mean what they seem to. I mean I'm kind of assuming there, but do you? Do you want to be faced with a choice between disobeying Jesus or leaving your job and home? Presumably not. So that must surely be a very powerful bias. Mustn't it? I don't see how it couldn't be. I specifically asked you to reconsider whether you were sure about items on your list being valid demonstrations that Jesus or his followers were not homeless mendicants... and you still came back with this dubious guesswork about Peter owning a house. Twice in your one reply, in fact.
A couple points. First, I just don’t see how you can make these kinds of accusations when you’ve left numerous points and arguments on the table unaddressed.
Secondly, I have temporarily left my family and job in the past to do short term mission work. So this isn’t an issue for me.
Thirdly, we can agree that everyone comes to the table with biases that inevitably influence how one interprets scripture. You are no exception and neither am I. You see I could ask you all the same questions. You said earlier this whole issue was a main reason you left the church. Surely you want these passages to be interpreted in a certain way thereby validating your reason for leaving. So that must surely be a very powerful bias as well, mustn't it? In fact, you even implied in your OP that Christians who don’t follow these teachings, as you’ve interpreted them, may be evidence Christianity is false. Of course you
want Christianity to be false, don’t you? I can make the same arguments. So let’s drop the psychoanalyzing shall we? Let’s just stick to the arguments.
And while it was an honest error, the fact that you so dramatically under-scrutinized the story of Simon the Pharisee could well be taken as further confirmation of this powerful confirmation bias at work!
Easy there, Mithrae. You’re reaching. It was an honest mistake where I muddled the cross references. You pointed it out and I happily acknowledged the error. If you take a simple honest error as “further confirmation of this powerful confirmation bias� I have to wonder if you are succumbing to your own confirmation bias.
In Acts 17 we read that at Athens, Paul "argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and also in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there." Then Paul went on to Corinth, apparently alone, or certainly without Silas and Timothy who were still catching up from Macedonia; he'd gone ahead of them to Athens and those who accompanied him on that leg had left to summon the others. At Corinth Paul met a couple he shared a lot in common with; diaspora Jews, recently arrived and tentmakers. He stayed with them, worked alongside them, and only on the Sabbaths went to the synagogue. But when Silas and Timothy arrived, Paul was "pressed in the spirit" (Textus Receptus, KJV/NKJV) or "began devoting himself completely" (Nestle-Alands, NASB) to the word, and testified to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ. This resulted in their resistance and blasphemy, so Paul left the synagogue and apparently left Aquila's home too; he went to the house of Justus instead. He stayed in Corinth for eighteen months, and many people including some Jews became believers there.
So from this story, you're going to infer a general principle of discipleship? What it looks like is that Paul traveled more or less alone (certainly without his closest partners) and contrary to Jesus' pattern of sending disciples out in pairs, first to Athens and then to Corinth, where he found companionship with Aquila and Priscilla and settled into a comfortable niche for a while – in particular, without testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.
A little fact checking. This highlighted bit is false it would seem.
�18 After these things he left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, having recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. He came to them, 3 and because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers. 4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. 5 But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, solemnly testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.� – Acts 18:1-5
Should I take your overlooking this bit of text as a confirmation of your confirmation bias?
So it would seem that Paul was working as a tent maker while in Corinth
and preaching the Gospel.
It was only the arrival of Silas and Timothy which sparked that change in him. Coming from Rome, Aquila and Priscilla almost certainly had not heard the gospel yet and, while we see later that they became believers, there's no mention of their conversion in the early verses of the chapter; there's not actually enough information there to be certain that Paul left their home, but it is implied by him going to the house of Justus, and if so a rift from his sudden preaching of Christ and going back to full-time evangelism would explain it.
There was no change. Paul was doing in Corinth the same things he had been doing all along. Evangelizing the Jews and Greeks
If anything, Luke seems to be presenting a case study here of what not to do. If Paul made tents or otherwise earned money to support himself in every town he visited there'd be no obvious reason to mention it here…
But there is an obvious reason to mention it here in Acts 18. Paul met other people who were of the same (somewhat obscure?) trade of tent making. That’s a simpler explanation than assuming Luke was presenting a case study of what not to do. We would expect Luke to not mention lapses or failures in Paul’s ministry. We wouldn’t expect Luke to highlight the failures of his mentor thereby exposing Paul as inconsistent.
..but it makes sense as a life lesson, gently expressed in respect for his mentor, about how things can go awry when neglecting Jesus' model of working in a team. By implication therefore, Paul earning money for his upkeep would - if anything - be a part of that failure... but certainly not a proof-text as to what Christians should do!
It’s not a proof text of what Christians should do. It demonstrates that Paul worked.
By the way did you notice the reference to “the house of Jason� who is counted among the brethren in Acts 17:5-9? But I guess Jason was just another one of many brethren who just hadn't reached the point of enlightenment where one is to sell all one has, quit one's job, and embark on the path of homelessness.
