It think Jesus would have an issue with the amount of wealth many Christians have. You dont ok.

Id be a little worried if i was a wealthy Christian.

And its not like there are not other Christians who hold these views and think along these lines and give up their wealth. There are even entire denominations which do so.

#1. I never gave my personal view on the amount of wealth many
Christians have, so this is a complete lie.

#2. Name one "entire denomination" that requires members to sell everything they have, and give the proceeds to the poor.

I didn't say you did. Im saying it. Im saying Jesus would have a problem with many wealthy Christians.

The you dont was sarcastic.

I never said that. Though i have heard of churches who do require it. But the stuff goes the the church usually.

The Amish would be a good example of Christians living an ascetic lifestyle.


VP$IP might of overextended but his jist was right.

I agree that his gist was correct, but it's not a diss on Christianity, or at least it shouldn't be, it should be a commentary on the nature of people.

We are all hypocrites, atheists and theists alike, so it's no wonder that some Christians would fall short of the teachings of Christ. It's a human problem, not a religious one.

While I also agree that Christians in the West do not live Godly lives, in general, I also don't believe the Bible teaches all followers of Christ to be homeless.

Damn spelling. Gist.

But would you agree there are some Christians who do give up all their wealth to be more perfect and become homeless because of those words?


I think more would considering the ramification. Im not in their minds but it doesn't seem like many see wealth as an issue. To be a hypocrite they would have to first see it as one.

Taking the parable of the "rich man" in perspective the consideration is that it is very difficult for those who desire riches to enter into the Kingdom. The reason for this is not that Christ Jesus is condemning this man but that when one seeks only and to excess the "fruits of the earth" then placing one's focus on the spiritual is obtunded. there is no sign in the world of spirit stating "rich men not allowed".

A better understanding can be appreciated by learning of what happens at and beyond death to the individual man. At death his life 'flashes before him" in pictures(imaginations) and this lasts about 2-3 days or how long the man could stay awake without sleep in his life.

Subsequent to this he enters into the "soul world" known as kamaloca in eastern thought and purgatory in Christian understanding though I haven't read any delineation of this realm within the Christian church(s) as we know it conventionally.

In this realm, which lasts about a third of the person's life , for example 20 years if the person lived to the age of 60 the soul proceeds backward from death to birth. this is actually the amount of sleep time the person experienced within the life on earth.

In this realm the soul experiences all that he has caused to others or his effect upon others during his lifetime. He experiences what the other felt. It is in this realm that karma manifests as a futuristic experience. By helping a person in distress one feels what he has caused and likewise if the man has punched someone in the nose he will experience this distress of another. this again, can be the precursor to future karmic involvement.

Other matter are brought forth in this realm. For example, if one is a gourmand and loves specific types of food the desire stays with the individual for desire is of the soul, not the physical body which is the corpse of the earth. This desire, if during earthly life, had not basis in spirituality then the gourmand is purged of this desire and suffers greatly until the particular desire no longer exists.

One cannot proceed further into the spiritual world with earthly desires which have to be cleansed in order for the soul to enter into higher realms. All traces of earthly manifestations are purged for this , example gourmand, has no place for fulfillment. There is no earthly food in the heavens.

The soul/spiritual being demands this purging and willingly accepts for he knows that further progress into the higher spiritual realms is obviated until the earth ceases to have effect. Even the cleverness of an inventor of great magnitudes goes through this purging so long as what he has accomplished in his meanderings is earthly not spirit dedicated.

The time between repeated lives, at present, is about 800 years but this is flexible and dependent upon the development of the individual soul and also the development of humanity.

Back to the rich man; it seems it would be difficult if all his predilections are only of the earth but he is not refused the ability to change and gain a karmic fulfillment into the next life.

Yes, there is suffering in the heavens, meaningful within Love.

This does it better ; An Outline of Occult Science by Rudolph Steiner

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA013/...013_index.html

I know some who have. I heard a pastor who would sell his possessions every few years and give it to the poor. He would then start again, but I don't believe he ever sold his home, he had children to protect. He would open his home and invite people in to grab stuff until there was nothing left.

As has been pointed out, some things are person-specific. It may be wrong for me to do something, and not for you.

I definitely don't think that a Christian is "wrong" simply by not being homeless, even though I whole heartedly agree that Christianity today has lost it's devotion to a few key tenets, of which I am also guilty of.

People are weak and selfish, what are you gonna do...

What does this mean?

Acts 4 and 5

The Believers Share Their Possessions

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Ananias and Sapphira

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Well, the lesson was for everyone who was there.

You can dismiss whatever you want for whatever reasons you want. I don't know why you seem to want to ask my permission to do so. I'm not going to pretend that you can't be stupid when interpreting and attempting to apply scripture. So if that's what you want to do, go for it.

Why not start your own thread? It might help.

I'd like to clarify "fruits of the earth" which is probably the wrong words if relating to someone who only desires and lives within the earthly condition sans spirit.

There are "fruits of the earth" which are consequential to the development of the individual man which he carries through death onward to the higher worlds after the "region of desires". Make no mistake about it, the earth is where man develops in order to live within the higher worlds and is not a realm to be denied. The entire cosmos of beings see the earth as the nidus of spiritual development and the human being is that whom they love, care for, and have anxiety about. Mankind is not a speck of dust.

It should be understood that this is not the reincarnation and karma as appreciated through Buddhism and the east but times change which means the human being, who lives within epoch to epoch, carries the fruits of previous lives onto the next.

The Buddha spoke such as life is suffering, death is suffering, old age is suffering, etc.. Therefore the message is to 'leave the wheel of life" and not to reincarnate again. This was the sage religion for the individual, not to be denied but matters are different now.

With the advent of Golgotha and the Christ Being within the earth as the Spirit of the Earth and within the hearts of all men the "Ego' of man has been unleashed. The Great Buddha did not recognize an individual "Ego" or "I" but we , human beings now have a "Ego'" unloosed and developing the human being in Freedom and Love.

The reincarnation and karma doesn't demand "release" but the bringing together of all human beings in the Light, the Love of Christ. the individual man not only develops for himself but for all mankind and in this he is placed within, and places himself within a people nation, race, gender,....in order to bring his individual boon to all of men, in Christ.

The individual man does this consciously which is no mean feat. Reincarnation and karma is not an ascetic foray for even the ascetics display what we may know as "egotistical" motivations. The Christ goal is the "Ego in selflessness" yet able to manifest his own individuality. Paradox but this is the future.

Another and last note is that very few individuals( some advance initiates) are able to know their karma while on the earth while the individual man relates to karma in much the same way we would see as "instinctual behavior". man travels to Australia and meets his wife of 50 years ; you could say that both of them followed this karmic instinct to which was planned prior to coming to earth.

Alright fair enough. There are some who have though and do so because of those words.

I dont think so. I think the camel story was speaking to all the rich.


I dont need your permission. But its were you end up with your interpretation. The verse says nothing to anyone but one person and since we dont know why and how giving up his wealth is making him perfect. Its meaningless as a teaching lesson without that knowledge so it can be dismissed.

Maybe, maybe not. Why do you care? Shouldn't you be down on your knees, praying to invisible beings?

First and foremost, it was for those present. It's not like "all the rich" were around to hear it.

It's interesting how you are attempting to extrapolate so much from so little.

Here's an analogy: A teacher in a middle school classroom says to a specific student, "Sit down and be quiet or else you're going to get detention."

1) That instruction was directed at a single student.
2) There's a lesson for the other students in the room.
3) That command and warning don't apply to all students of that teacher at all times and all situations.

How about second? Dos it go for all rich or should rich Christians of today pretend they are ostriches instead of camels?


the games...
There a lot there. In fact the more i look at the verse the more it doesn't make sense. The guy had no sin as far as i can tell. Which would of already made him perfect.

I wont ask you to explain it though since you dont do that.

It's funny because I mentioned this idea before but "perfect" here doesn't mean flawless or sinless. It's τέλειος, it means "complete" in the sense of having reached full maturity.

Well see there is an answer. Kind of clears it up.

Welcome to the world of Biblical interpretation. If you're doing it right, it never comes down to

That's just dumb.

Um... **** you.

You are as usual worthless in these convos. Good work.

Oh and its still a one off and does not make complete sense. Why was a sinless man made whole reaching full maturity by giving up the money? Idk does not say. Would other Christians be more whole if they did?

I could guess and come to my own interpretation. But you get **** on in here for that.
And its not like i have not been opened to being wrong about my interpretations and changed them....But instead the games.

I don't think the idea of a single objectively correct interpretation of ancient religious texts makes any sense as a general rule. I would also say we might distinguish 3 questions

1) assuming an actual historical event behind the text, what did Jesus mean and how did his immediate hearers understand him?

2) The authors of the text (who are not Jesus) included it, and wrote about it in a certain way. What did they mean, who were they addressing, and how did their audience understand them?

3) From a Christian perspective, or one attempting to draw some value (not just in historical terms, but as an answer to the question "how should I live?") from the text in the present, what can or should it mean for us?

They don't necessarily all have to have the same answer, nor is it the case that Christians have all uniformly believed that the answer to (3) is exactly the same as (1), although that phenomena is more pronounced when dealing with O.T. texts

As far as the question of whether the text implies an attitude towards wealth (and perhaps capitalism, as in Acts) that seems in tension with modern Christians in the US, I think with regard to (2) at the very least it's true that tension does exist. The earliest church did seem to adopt a more "socialist" (forgive the anachronism) stance.

I like the speculation Jesus was an Essene. Pretty much commies.

To claim the man is sinless runs contrary to most theological formulations of sin.

Why don't you find a couple commentaries and do some homework on it rather than continuing to speculate aimlessly?

I think many would be.