oldbadger wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 2:59 am
Diogenes wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 11:15 pm
Jesus (and Paul) thought the world was going to end soon. This is why Jesus told people to give away their possessions, and Paul taught people should not marry. Jesus spoke very specifically about the world ending in the lifetime of those he preached to. [I won't go into the verses, because it will spawn the usual verbal gymnastics about how he did not mean what he said]
Christians, for the most part, ignore the idea of not attaining wealth. They also ignore the admonition not to marry. They ignore these basic Christian teachings because they don't like them. Instead, they claim Jesus didn't really mean what he said about the end coming soon. This provides cover for getting married and accumulating wealth.
The question for debate is, "Why do most Christians marry and try to accumulate wealth despite the very clear New Testament admonitions to do the opposite?
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.
__ Matthew 6:19-20
I don't think that Jesus was saying the same 'things' as Paul, so I would prefer to comment about Jesus.
I think that Jesus was talking about 'their' world to end, a World run by a greedy, self-centred, hypocritical and corrupt priesthood beneath and trying to copy the cultures of a pagan occupation.
But 'yes', he certainly didn't believe in unreasonable wealth in the midst of such massive unreasonable poverty.
He said so, but like you, I'll wait to be asked by any who do not know the scriptures about that.
Two points about that.
(a) Given that while it was the Sadducees that ran the Temple, had the power, collaborated with the Romans (Maybe they thought it was for the best, but they didn't lose by that) and were the wealthy pro Roman aristocrats and politicians in 1st c Judea, the Pharisees, while having opportunities I suppose to make money as Rulers of Synagogues, were teachers of the Law to the people, and not really the corrupt swanks that the Gospels paint them to be (1). Jesus in the Sermon (which it comes from, I suppose) yeah...6. 19. He is supposedly talking to ordinary people, householders, traders and anyone with a little money to hand over to the common purse, for all the world like a megachurch preacher getting the people to empty their wallets into his bank account.
(b) also Jesus never said it. Or that's my view. Sure, hardly anyone else shares it (though I Have Faith
that one day they will as it's obvious when seen) but to me the significant fact is that this passage is also found in Luke 12.33 and in a quite different place - taught on the road to Peraea like the half of the sermon material after the 'Lord's prayer' (11.1) taught for the first time to the disciples when Jesus was praying before they set out for Jerusalem, the previous material being in a Sermon of Luke's own on a level place'. This material is (with a couple of particular exceptions) not found in Mark and what this means is that this is all Q document material, not in the original synoptic gospel and used by both Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) and is put (often) into different places in the Gospels because they edited their gospel independently, if the contradictions didn't make it obvious that Luke did not read Matthew, or he wouldn't have contradicted him (2). The point being that none of this is Jesus' sayings, though I can well believe that it was a list of Thomaslike 'Jesus saids' imported into Matthew and Luke from an original document as lost as the Synoptic original, and reflecting the views of the early church. Chief amongst which is 'Give all your money to us', And which is still unshakeable doctrine up to the present day. Hallelujiah.
(1) they tended to be anti Roman and tended to zealotry and that's what the Gospels had against them, as well as following the Pauline line of discrediting the Law.
(2) one apologist on my former board tried to argue that Luke deliberately contradicted Matthew so that nobody would believe Matthew. What he thought good that did Christianity I don't know but I suppose it was to him as good an explanation as any other than 'none of it is reliable'