Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
didn't say otherwise....only said that it also had to do with sharing the gospel of the Kingdom...Actually, it refers to someone trying to buy the gifts that God offers freely. Money can not buy the things that God gives us (like the Holy Spirit, for example), which is exactly what Peter is saying here.
Did somebody (besides you) say that?
This is an easy one, and it has been answered by a couple of people in this thread already. They didn't have any money on them. But that doesn't mean they were broke.
"After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. He told them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. "When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house." (Luke 10:1-7)
This was the way Jesus taught the disciples to minister. Go out two by two (Peter and John), taking nothing with them. When they were among the people, they would minister to their needs and stay at someone else's house and eat whatever the person gave them. The reason they were told to take nothing with them was because a "worker was worthy of his wages". They would work by ministering to the people in exchange for food and housing. They were not poor, however. You cannot leave gold, silver, tunics, sandals behind if you don't have it to leave behind.
Also in the previous chapter (Acts 2), the disciples performed many miracles in the temple courts and the people there ate, drank and sold their possessions and gave to anyone in need. It was a time of great fellowship and giving. Not one person was left wanting or in need. Considering the fact that not one person was left in need after all this giving, how poor could Peter and John really have been seeing as how both were present in the temple courts when all this giving was taking place?
So my conclusion is that they didn't have money because they left their money behind. Just like they probably left their extra sandals, tunics, etc etc behind as well. This is the way Jesus taught them to minister.
Easy G (G²);54107926 said:
now to the issue of treasury...I keep seeing this issue come up time and time again, and truly don't get the point...the money that they did have was kept in the collective, therefore someone was needed to keep track of it, and to hold it...no problem, how does that mean that they were not poor? Consider this, I was in 4-H for years and years....we had a treasurer, but barely enough money to cover the basics...does that mean we were wealthy? I think too many people fail to grasp that the impoverished often have some money, just not enough to meet their daily needs...Let's say that I need to eat, it costs $1 to get enough food to keep me alive. I might have 50 cents in my pocket, by definition, that makes me impoverished...(provided of course that what is in my pocket is all I have (issuing a preemptive argument here)) anyway, the point is this, just because they had a treasurer doesn't mean they "had" money, they may have been struggling to meet their own needs and helping others was an act of love, of sacrificial giving, that is totally within the realm of possible here...now another premptive argument, that is not to say they were poor, only that the reasoning here is flawed at best.Easy G (G²);54107926 said:
On the text in question, it occurred to me awhile back how it is odd to see people assume Peter was automatically without funds in any way when he met the beggar.Acts 3:6
Acts 3
Peter Heals the Crippled Beggar
1One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayerat three in the afternoon. 2Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. 3When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. 4Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, "Look at us!" 5So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them.
6Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." 7Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man's feet and ankles became strongActs 3:5-7 / Acts 3
homeless men often help homeless men, but that is another story....Curious as to why it seems others automatically say "Peter was without any financial ability due to him saying he didn't have silver or gold."----when logically, one being without something doesn't equate to them never having it at some point. Others have read the passage as saying that at the moment, Peter really didn't have any alms to give to the man as expected........just as it'd be the case if you always have finances for the ministry you do and yet on some days you do not carry money with you to certain places, either due to forgetting or simply due to the fact that you know others will expect money from you/beg and you no longer wish to enable that to happen.
For historical context, when the text says at the 9th hour of prayer, that means 3:00pm. For the Jews had 3 daily times of prayer..with the other two being 9:00am (third hour) and 12:00 noon (sixth hour). The beggars often considered the temple the best site to operate because of the daily throngs that came to impress God with their good pious works, including offerings as the temple treasury.....and on that point, it's something Christ often noted when it came to those who gave publically for show--Matthew 6:1-3 / Matthew 6 Matthew 23:5 /Mark 12:42-44 /Mark 12 /Mark 12:42-44 / Mark 12 . It was also an issue for Jesus since the poor were often neglected outside of the temple---which is why it angered the religious leaders of the day when He took the time to address the full needs of the poor/cripple by bringing them into the temple/healing them...as well as doing the same at the parties/dinners of wealthy Pharisees whenever the poor/crippled would be near and in need of help---yet neglected by those who were to bring healing, Matthew 21:12-14 /Matthew 21:13-15 Matthew 21 Luke 14:1-3 /Luke 14:3-5 Luke 14:12-14 / Luke 14 ....and the actions of Christ would've been very much in remembrace by the disciples when they faced the same.
Seeing that Peter and John already went to the temple daily---as do ALL Jews, as expected---and the man begging expected them to give him money--it'd seem logical to assume that Peter and John had been ones to have been known to be able to provide for the poor. If they were already poor/beggars like the man who was begging them, that'd seem foolish.....just as it'd be if 2 homeless men were looking to each other for benevolence ministrynow I'm gonna ask a question that.....skip that part.....as I understand what many here are saying, the poor need money to pay bills and buy food...if this is true, why would you refuse to take the money God has given you to give to the poor because they might beg for it? I mean, if the poor need money, why not take money when you go into the communities of poor, and give it to them, even though they are begging? This to me seems a contradiction in theology....I'm not sure how this relates
where I find this all interesting, as I have in the past, you seem to be missing one thing....they left their businesses to follow Jesus....now I don't know about you, but if I left my business, to follow someone, live with them, work with them, learn from them, it wouldn't take very long for me to become impoverished, my business in shambles....I think we cannot loose site of the fact, that they left behind even their families, (as we see in your above reference) to follow Jesus, that would suggest to us that they left their businesses as well, especially when they left their ships to follow as well as their father....Easy G (G²);54107932 said:This also connects with the issue mentioned earlier of examining the OCCUPATIONS of the apostles when it came to their financial status. There was actually a wonderful article on the issue--specifically, on examining the nature/make-up of the 12 disciples Christ chose to work with...Matthew 4:18-20 / Matthew 4 /Matthew 10:1-3 / Matthew 10, Mark 1:16-18 /Mark 1/ Mark 3:12-14 / Mark 3/ Luke 5:27-29 /Luke 5 Luke 6:12-14 / Luke 6 / John 1:44-46 / John 1 (As said best in the article known as "Jesus Chose Small Businessmen" :It is sometimes interesting to have a look at Jesus' twelve disciples and what type of people he chose to help start the church.Good perspective, IMHO---especially for those who're with gifts of adminstration and giving/leadership ( Romans 12:7-9/Romans 12 /1 Corinthians 12:27-29 /1 Corinthians 12 ) involved in Grass-Roots organizations and often made to feel as if what occurred with Christ was not what they deal with. And for more information on the status of the disciples, I'd suggest looking into the thread known as Little faith and little money
Jesus himself was a tradesman, a carpenter. He knew what hard work was and what it required to help support his family.
Peter, Andrew, James and John were all small family business men. The family business was fishing. They owned their own boats and when Jesus called them they were busy either casting a net into the sea or mending their nets.
Next called was Phillip and Phillip went and found Nathaniel (also know as Bartholomew) and they both followed Jesus. We don't know what jobs they did before following Christ, but it seems Phillip may have known something food and perhaps being in charge of supplying the disciples food as Jesus asked him "where shall we buy bread, that these may eat. Philip estimated that 200 denarii worth of bread would not feed the crowd".
Likewise Judas Iscariot seem to be the groups treasurer and had control of the money box, maybe this was relevant to his prior occupation.
Matthew was a franchisee owner. He happened to own the government franchise on collecting tax - a very profitable business. In fact Matthew was busy collecting tax at his office at the very time Jesus called him.
Other disciples included, Thomas, James - son of Alphaeus, Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus), and Simon the Zealot we aren't given what there occupations were but one thing is clear from this list. Jesus was happy to be around small business owners, home based business owners and tradesman. Jesus was and is a friend of the working man and woman.
Considering the status of one like John, one can go back and consider looking at Mark 1:19-20/Mark 1:2316As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 18At once they left their nets and followed him.
19When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.
Amazing that those coming from "homeless/broke" families were SOMEHOW able to afford HIRED SERVANTS!!!! Unless of course it's the case that in the times it was the POOR working for the Poor, then the logical response is that the disciples were from well-off families. It's amazing to see how often people act as if all of those who followed Christ were "dirt poor"...yet not many read through the scriptures, of course. And with the example of John/James, most forget that they were PARTNERS of Peter when it came to owning boats/resources and their fishing endeavors:For Several of Jesus' first disciples were not poor but were self-employed fisherman or, as in this case (James and John), were apart of a family buisness.
Luke 5:6-8 /Luke 5
Luke 5
The Calling of the First Disciples
1One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret,[a]with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God, 2he saw at the water's edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. 3He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat. 4When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, "Put out into deep water, and let down] the nets for a catch."
5Simon answered, "Master, we've worked hard all night and haven't caught anything. But because you say so, I will let down the nets."
6When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break. 7So they signaled their partners in the other boat to come and help them, and they came and filled both boats so full that they began to sink.
8When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus' knees and said, "Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!"
9For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, 10and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon's partners.
Then Jesus said to Simon, "Don't be afraid; from now on you will catch men." 11So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him.
For those who were fishermen, for example, people often fail to realize how much of a profitable buisness the fishing industry was in the times Christ lived in...with the Sea of Galilee being a BIG TIME Hot spot for anyone wanting to get work, due to the variety of fish (and thus, diversity in products) one could find. Many were involved in the trade, from the fishermen--who could be day laborers (Mark 1:19-20) to the owners of the fishing boats and the merchants who marketed the fish. The Gospels themselves also attested to a thriving fishing trade ( Matthew 4:16 ).
There are already many views concerning the reality of how Jesus's ministry actually affected the very economy of the times in which He lived. For some scholars do not hold to the view that the disciples being fishermen equates to them being others who were either "loaded" (i.e. SUPER RICH) or "Middle Class"/Blue Collared..and some scholars have made cases for the trade of fishing being something that was akin to what was found within the working-poor class (meaning that the miracles of Jesus giving MIRACULOUS blessing of increased produce/fish had even MORE significance for them since He indeed came along/took something small & made it into something far more....prosperous). For more info, one can go look up the work of a man by the name of K.C. Hanson, who has written of the economic and social systems that typified the Galilean fishing culture...and who disagrees with those claiming Galilean fishermen were middle class. since, according to Hanson, the system of taxes, licenses, and tribute would have kept them at a subsistence level..as seen in his work entitled The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition,
Also, for a differing perspective concerning the economic issues of Christ's time, one may wish investigating a book entitled Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life By David A. FiensyAdditionally, there's an interesting study I think would be beneficial on the reality of how Jesus challenged the economic structures of the times Himself. For more info, one can go online and look up an article by the name of Nazareth's rebellious son: deviance and downward mobility in the Galilean Jesus movement. ( //www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-185031913/nazareth-rebellious-son-deviance.html ). For the abstract
One may also wish to look into the work of Jerome Murphy OConnor -who DISCUSSES in depth another view on how those who were fishermen were actually required to be EXTREMELY competitive/educated on many points in order to survive in the world they lived in..
The Jesus movement fostered several economic dynamics including exacerbating the downward mobility of peasants alienated from their families, these very families, and even some "wealthy" persons associated with the movement. Passages from Q suggest that new fictive-kin groups quickly emerged and developed their own patron-client economy. By meeting the basic needs of its members, this household-based domestic economy also created a safety-net for its disenfranchised and honored poor. The Jesus movement represented one of the many sub-systems within first-century Galilee, andwith some modificationit resembled later urban Christian households, especially those characteristic of Paul and LukeActs.
Hope the information aids others in any kind of way...
a 4-H budget is for basic supplies and fees, on a good year, it provides some snacks...Jesus would have needed clothes, shelter, and food just for survival, as would his disciples...the parallel as best i can tell stands, both are talking about basic needs for the function of daily activities, both are talking about what is needed for that to happen, and both show that a treasurer is helpful and needed when a collective pool their money for the use of all in that collective, which was the real point of the analogy anyway....just because a group of people get together and say, 'let's pool our money for our common good' doesn't mean they are rich, it does however mean they need someone who holds that money and pays the bills out of that money, aka a treasurer...in other words, a treasurer does not equal lots of money, but rather it indicates a collective fund for a collective purpose...two very different things.
again, if you actually consider the analogy, you realize that a treasurer is not necessary because of large sums of money, but rather because the money was collectively owned and spent...as to Judas stealing money, money get's stolen all the time and is not detected until much later. consider our own household...it would be possible, simply because we are frugal, that we could loose or have money stolen from our possession and not know it for a week or more. In fact, I lost my drivers license once and didn't realize it till it was too late to just renew it...my husband lost his billfold once and didn't realize it for at least a week...he just thought he misplaced it somewhere in the house and it had fallen behind the cabinet of something, never taking the time to locate it...Point being, where what you are saying is possible, it is equally possible that your ideas are wrong here....in order to narrow down the possibles we need to look beyond this into the heart and mind of God when it comes to the poor, and even that won't totally address the issue of whether these men had money or not....the point is that we simply can argue about it for the rest of our lives, but that doesn't mean either case is stronger or weaker based on this information alone.
why would you take 25 cents? a collective treasurer means that I give my 50 cents, you give you 1.25, and Joe over there gives his 2 bucks, together we all can eat. That is the point of a treasurer for a collective good, together we are stronger....why would you steal 25 cents from that collective budget? I don't get it...
read what was said...it says that this money was to be given to the poor...they expected it to be gone, so when it was gone, what would make them expect Judas stole it? Again, I'm somehow missing your point, if I expect the $100 to be missing from the "purse" and I look and it is missing just as I expected, why would I need $1000 to assume it was stolen? Doesn't make sense to me...the more money in the purse, the harder not easier it would be to steal if I already expected the money to be gone....because if there was more, I would be counting it to see who else we could help....
so please then present this evidence...I'm interested and all ears, keep in mind however that I will question the evidence as anyone should who wants to know truth....the evidence for both sides, not just one side (just for clarity)....
how much money did Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, etc. need to pay bills and buy food? Point is this, money is a man made way of placing a heiarchy on man so that they have an identity in a large collective. It is not merely a means of survival, in fact, God created the means for survival when He created this planet we live on...I think any time we talk about money and God we need to be sure we understand that money is a man made thing, not a Godly one...it is a man made heiarchy for the purpose of showing favortism... survival is a God created way of using the world He gave us, He created, to enjoy the blessings of HIs heart and hands....I don't think we dare confuse them...
this was in reference to refusing to take money to a benevolance ministry because the people might beg for money....the question, when kept in context, asks why, if the poor need money, one would refuse to take money to them, even if they are begging?Could you rephrase that, because I'm not really sure what the question is. FTR though, I try to make it a point to not "refuse" to do anything God asks me to do.
anyone done the research to know how much two people would have had to live on if their tax burden was four-drachma coin?
[/quote]my point is that God created a world where we do not need bills to survive....bills are man made not God made....as such, even our bills are subjected to God's authority are they not? Even we, mere man can control our bills to a large extent....so why would money be what we need, why isn't God what we need, especially if every gift we have, including money is from God? I'm not suggesting that in our world we don't need money to pay for basics like heat and lodging, but rather that according to scripture we are not to set our minds and hearts on these things, but rather on the things of God...it's about learning to trust God with everything even when it doesn't seem to make sense to us....it's about facing a cold winter without prospect of money and resting in the knowledge and "warmth" that God knows even this...Sure. That's why it's called "speculation".
The fact is, you need money to pay bills. It really is that simple.
Because as I said in the other thread, while it's true that we all need money if we expect to be able to actually pay our bills, it's far from being the ONLY thing that the poor (or any of us) need.
