"Silver or gold I do not have"

razzelflabben · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54131347 said:
Easy G (G²);54131343 said:

Continued from before

Again, you may be reading more into the text than warranted----as if Jesus was known EVERYWHERE the moment he called his disciples to follow him or as if people all knew where he was at. Unless, of course, one can show from the text and culture that EVERYONE in the towns Jesus lived/traveled in knew where his residence was at.

Click to expand...

????it is a stretch to say that if the disciples didn't know where Jesus house was, they either weren't as close to Him as they thought and we are told, or He didn't own the house....I mean, how is it reading into the text to say that if 12 guys are with a dude every single day, intimate with him, that they don't know where His house is....you honestly don't think they never got to gether at Jesus house to party, eat together, play scrabble, wait for Him to change His clothes...what I said is that it is unreasonable to think that 12 guys that close to Jesus would not know where He lived, if indeed the house was His and not just a lodging He was using for the season. If you want to disagree, show how that is unreasonable to assume...even for the culture of the day.

But apart from that, it seems you're making an argument based on the logical fallacy of argument via personal incredulity/disbelief---that is, because you cannot believe something to be true, it must not be. And that seems to do damage to the text---as the bottom line is that in John 1, the disciples asked clearly where Jesus was staying when he came to them. That is an indication of wondering where someone lives at-----and no wonder, seeing the amount of people in a town and how some may have kept to themselves.

Click to expand...

so you really think that it is reasonable for your close friends and confidents to not know where you live? Okay then, and you accuse me of reading into the text what is not there. None of my close friends and confidants do not know where I live, they all know, I don't even try to keep it a secret from them, in fact, it is a common question asked very early on in a relationship that is becoming close. But if you really think that is an odd thing to know about someone close to you, I don't really know what to say, I hope your family never moves without telling you where they are moving to, because these men were like a family with one another and you want me to believe that you are not reading into the text to assume that Jesus might have moved without telling them He was or where He was going....got a question for you, if Jesus was intending to keep His home a secret, why did they ask, expecting and answer and why did Jesus who had been keeping the secret, suddenly tell them?

Don't have to---as you've already made clear where you stand and that you're not really concerned with seeing or considering otherwise.

Click to expand...

now there has been a lot of talk about flaming, and this could be considered your attempt to attack my character, so I'm gonna hope your above all that.

But on the issue of Matthew 13, there's a context...as the DAY before he "went out of the house", the parallel account of Mark 3:31-34 was clear that his mothers and brothers came for him in the area and he dealt with it (seeing that they lived in the area, most likely in the home Jesus was at--and hence, why it was such a scene when they came to find the house OVER-CROWDED and Jesus akin to a "Super-Star", to which they said "He has lost his mind in Mark 3:31....and as Mark 1 says even more clearer, there was a huge revival in town and it interrupted his time of GOING HOME to eat/fellowship (as he had just gotten done choosing the 12 disciples

Click to expand...

???? and so????? how does any of that counter what I said?????

Mark 3:13-35

The Appointing of the Twelve Apostles

13Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14He appointed twelvedesignating them apostles[a]that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15and to have authority to drive out demons. 16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); 18Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.Jesus and Beelzebub

20Then Jesus went home, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." 22And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub[b]! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."

23So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
30He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."
Jesus' Mother and Brothers

31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." 33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

No one said anything about the option being out that he had close friends/family whom he had connections with. But the text makes clear that Jesus in Mark 3:20 returned home....i.e., to the place where he stayed in Capernum. And on the same token, I'd say that it's important that you'd not leave out/dismiss the options you do not like (i.e. the idea of Jesus owning or renting)

Click to expand...

wow! I am the one who said that it was possible that He was renting (or at least I suggested it) it is also possible that He was invited to stay with a friend and accepted...what is not of high probability is that He owned the home, because if He had owned it, those close to Him would most likely have known where it was....

Mark 2

Jesus Heals a Paralytic

1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them.
If looking in Mark 2:1, it makes clear that Jesus was returning home from his time of preaching/ministry throughout GALILEE TO Capernum (c.20 miles [32km] northeast of Nazareth)..which serves as the base for his Galilean ministry. As occurred earlier, after he came from the home of Simon and Andrew in Mark 1:29-34,

Click to expand...

nothing in that equals that He owned the house.

Mark 1:35-38

35Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. 36Simon and his companions went to look for him, 37and when they found him, they exclaimed: "Everyone is looking for you!" 38Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere elseto the nearby villagesso I can preach there also. That is why I have come. 39So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.
Jesus, though originally was mobile, later began a traveling ministry...and with the phrase "at home", many credible scholars make clear that it most likely means Jesus is currently living in Capernum at the time it was spoken. As the man was a Carpenter, additionally, Jesus could have easily found work for himself in making places to live---as well as being on the level of carpenter who were contractors/living differing places (much like today when one is a contractor/carpenter and making houses for others but at times living in what may be a temporary "project").

Click to expand...

no problem for what I said....

Of course there are differing usages of the word "home"---but on the issue, what cannot be missed is the fact that because there are differing usages of the term "Home" today in our cultural context, it does not logically follow that they had the same kind of dynamics back in the days of Christ--especially if already making clear one does not believe (nor is inclined to) that Jesus owned a house. And in Jewish culture As it is, seeing that he had many brothers/sisters to take care of as the ELDEST brother since his father Joseph died, it was incumbent upon the oldest male to ensure his own family had a place of residence/ability to be taken care of.

Click to expand...

Hummmm....a family home with lots of brothers and sisters who are not contributing to the family wealth? I would love that culture, my brother would be supporting us right now, and we wouldn't have to work....how cool is that!!!!! oh, and while your trying to work your way out of that pickle you made for yourself, try showing me how the culture did not use home to indicate country, city, etc....I'd love to see that, especially with verses like...Luke 4:24 where the strong's reference says that country can also mean, fixed abode or home.........
1) one's native country
a) one's fatherland, one's own country, a fixed abode or home
b) one's own native place i.e. a city

razzelflabben · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54131566 said:
Jesus having God as His Heavenly Father doesn't erase the reality of who his earthly Father was. For in JEWISH culture, though Jesus would have been known by himself as the Son of God/made clear His father was God, its not dealing with the text to say that Joseph was not his father and that Jesus didn't consider Joseph a parent in any kind of way. Additionally, it is not dealing with the culture of the times since every Jewish boy had a trade to be involved in----and though the art of carpentry was what his earthly father was into, it does not logically make sense to say Jesus was not in the business of making furniture. One can do both.

Click to expand...

I didn't suggest otherwise...

For a better perspective on the issue--as well as symbolism concerning the occupation of a carpenter---one can go to Jesus Christ the Carpenter and Important Symbolism of Jesus as the Son of a Carpenter ...

As it is, in Jewish culture, one was known by the name of their father/identified by that trade...and Joseph filled that role in many ways. Additionally, one could easily make a side argument that because God was Jesus's father, Jesus had no "mother"...but that would be silly since the text makes clear Jesus called Mary his "mother" various times ...and the scriptures make clear who his parents were that the Lord had chosen to raise Him in the Fear/Love of the Lord (Luke 2 )

Click to expand...

I'll address things when they relate to what I actually said...

And on the issue, it's something that has really had mmany pondering for a good bit. Specifically due to the reality of how often it seems that people focus on the Savior/His person and yet forget the reality of how it was also a matter of the PARENTS of Christ making a difference in his development.

Click to expand...

actually, I have thought about this a great bit, but you are still missing what I actually said and how it relates to the topic....

If you're to going to say "I said...", please try to do so within CONTEXT--as I made clear that when the DISICPLES left to follow Jesus (as several of the first disciples were not poor but rather self-employed fishermen..and as in the case of James/John in Mark 1:20 alongside their partner Peter, were part of a family buisness), they did not do so with it meaning that their buisnesses fell apart...and as they did have families to be taken care of, provision was ensured for those left behind as they went on the Mission Field/Pilgrimage with Christ for the time they did.

Click to expand...

hummm????and your point???? I think in context, my comments stand firm...when one has a vibrant business and leaves it for another adventure, either someone else runs the business, or it falls into painful straights....that is just the nature of business both now and then.....

The quote you're discussing with Joseph/Mary was not even MY QUOTE--as it was by John Macarther. So do not attribute what he said to me. Not saying I disagree with it...but credit where it's due, of course. Additionally, what happened with Joseph and Mary has nothing to do with the reality of what the disciples dealt with when they had to walk away from their buisnessess. With Peter, James and John--again, their buisness was in TACT and still able to give provision since they were well-off and it was a family buisisness that the Father of the Sons of Zebedee was still involved in when they left. Same with Matthew the Tax-Collector---who was already well off enough to be able to throw an expensive party in a short amount of time/with ease. If he took a break, it would not have cost him much financially-----especially seeing how shrewd Tax-COllectors already were in savings/finance and not doing anything without making certain funds are in place for later.

Click to expand...

so your whole theology is based on what the men used to do for a living and not how their lives and calling changed after Jesus called them to follow...okay, a bit short sighted for my liking, but you have the right to go that road if you like...

Additionally, seeing where Joseph and Mary were at during the time when they WERE poor, there was more than enough time to build up/move in rank when it came to the art of carpentery. Just because they were poor when Joseph was "temporarily laid off" does not mean that it HAS to be the same way continually in the future....and with Jesus, who was already well known/easily able to build up in time to provide for his own mother/family when his father had become more established...died...and passed it on for Jesus to continue, it's a differing gig.

Click to expand...

I didn't suggest otherwise, I'll address this further when you start acknowledging some idea of what I actually said.

However, though one could say that meant that Mary/Joseph were DIRT Poor, I think we have to be open to differing views...as it could also be the case that perhaps they were in hard times with the endeavors Joseph was in---as has often happened with many having small buisinesses that were good but fell on the rocks for a bit/what was affordable went up and changes in budgeting came up.

Click to expand...

and here is my problem...you say this of Mary and Joseph but refuse to accept the same of Jesus and the disciples....why the double standard?

But with Joseph being a "carpenter" (tecnhically, a Stone Mason..which had MUCH work at various times more than just working with wood), the job describes the kind of economic mobility and ability he'd have..as well as Jesus later on when inheriting the Family Buisness. Seeing that as the First Adam was created to WORK, so it was with Jesus. For even He had a JOB/PROFITABLE trade and handled his buisness. As mentioned before..

Click to expand...

Do you not think that Joseph also would have had and inheritance? savings? Enough to carry him for a few months, compared to Jesus ministry years?

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

razzelflabben said:
Easy G (G²);54131343 said:

I find it curious that just because someone deems what was said as a disagreement, it is naturally assumed that one has not studied?

Click to expand...

All I asked, Bruh, was whether or not you had. It was a very simple question that only required "yes" or "no"..alongside asking for what resources/references you studied from. For depending on the train of thought you studied from, that can make a lot of difference.....just as there are differing Rabbinical teachings/views within Messianic Judaism

Ah well, what do you think I have amiss in this statement....I talked about and included that wealth would have been passed down,

Click to expand...

No one discussed you not understanding the passing down of wealth. What was discussed, however, as the issue of provision when taking leaves of abscenses for extended trips (as the disciples did for a season) and how they had buisnesses that continued to make money for their loved ones while they were away.

and yet here you seem to think I don't understand that passing down of wealth, so what am I missing, that will help...and I talked about additional sources of income as well..

I also understand the point of having additional ways of making income---which I've never disagreed with......

.in fact, everything you say here is pretty much what I have been saying and yet you suggest I haven't studied the culture....how does that follow?

Never mind, Bruh...

okay, I'm thinking I am starting to clarify some of what you think I said....I never suggested homelessness of anyone, only that it could not be ruled out by terms of what scripture actually says.

Cool....

Well since I never suggested they didn't have a residence, only that that residence might not have been in their name, and since I said that the community (the community you claim I don't understand) would have cared for those in their family and close friends,

At the end of the day, it comes down to it being possible that in both situations---whether a house in your own name or whether it's in the name of another who gives it to you to live in as a blessing---the disciples were not wandering around the streets homeless or destitute. Though there's the reality of what was the most likely view on the matter...

I am once again lost as to what you believe I am suggesting, and what you think I have wrong... if we are talking about the way this is translated, not how it should be, another issue I brought up, why would Simon's mother in law be in a sick bed in her child's house, wouldn't she be in her own house, that is, if it was not a family house..

That does not have any logical connection--as plenty of families with their OWN homes and yet having parents/elders unable to take care of themselves and who live with their children. Taking care of the elderly in their old age was always a BIG deal--and it was not the case that they HAD to be living in their own homes. Additionally, if the woman was sick/unable to take care of herself, then the reality of her living in her own home would be unlikely since there'd be an inability to do so. She would have to find another to take care of her. As the Word is not exhaustive on the issue or all the details, of course some things one can either speculate on/surmise or leave alone.

If it was a family house, the door would always be open for family to come live there

. in other words, it would be shared expenses, not just the money from their own buisness, in fact, if mother in law is living there, it is likely that the house was inherited, not purchased by his own hand.

..but again, that is not an absolute, which is what I have been saying all this time...

Matthew 4:18-22 indeed makes clear that Andrew was a Fisherman like Peter. Though as he was not as involved as often due to following John, it would not have been the case that he was making as much as Peter consistently/having an equal share in the buisness. The text of scripture makes clear (additionally) that business was placed more so in the name of Peter--as in Luke 5:8-11 that the brothers, James and John, were partners of Peter rather than Andrew. Though both could have been fishermen, it was the reality that one had more influence financially than the other...just like one running a company with his brother and yet in time, more emphasis is given to the other due to that one being there faithfully--even though his brother may have skill as well.

Even with the home situation, the name "Peter/Simon" comes first (before Andrew), which indicates prominence or order in roles. Though ultimately, We have no idea what the home life was like at home---as to whether or not it was a situation where Peter was the one who the home was in the name in and Andrew was not pulling his weight around...or whether it started good and yet in time, as Andrew followed John around extensively, that Peter grew in prominence.

On the house situation, It seems more likely to surmise that thhe house simply a house that both Peter and Andrew lived in. Seeing how some families may not have always had the opportunity to have an inheritance (As the reality of husbands dying and leaving their wives/children as widows and orphans without coverage was a BIG deal back in the Bible), sometimes it was the case people had to work from scratch and be a "self-made" man. So the possibility of Peter having to work his butt off to get where he was----to the point where he was in good standing/equal partnership with wealthy James and John in their family buisiness---is just as valid.

???? So if my two sons, go together and buy a house, one leaving for a season, it is the one who leaves that is automatically the main bread winner? Why can't they share the responsibility, or why can't the one leaving be the main bread winner, or the one staying

No one argues against the possibility that they both shared responsibility---though that doesn't mean that one was not consistently in the position of making more than the other/being the primary one taking care of things...just as it is with roommates who grew up as brothers and like to help each other out---even though it's made clear that one has more to bring than another and more weight falls on him. And as often happens in families where one is having to deal more so with the weight of provision, they may be more slow to get in line with another doing "spiritual work". We often assume the disciples, on a side note, were great men of faith the moment they met Jesus for the first time. But they had to grow in their faith as do believers. In Mark 1:16-20, this is apparently not the only time Jesus called Peter (Simon), James and John to follow (see Luke 5:1-11 and John 1:35-42 for two other times...as in the other, Andrew had been following John for a good bit...and was convinced Jesus was the real deal, though when he told Peter, didn't fall in quickly). Even though in Luke 4 Jesus was invited to heal Peter's mother-in-law, it took time for Jesus's message and call to get through and for the disciples to consider following him.

...I think the significance here is that they were "poor" enough that sharing responsibility was a wise thing..., I mean wealth, would dictate they each owned their own homes, not a community family home as we see here.

Not necessarily, provided the reality of relationship and that they mutually wanted to live together.

Now please don't twist this, I'm not saying they were destitute,

Was never thinking such..

never have, only that the text does not support wealth.

But again, that's divorced from the rest of the text---namely, Mark 1:16-20 ad Matthew 4:18-22 on the reality of who Peter's partners were..........that they were already men from a SUCCESSFUL FAMILY Business that had done well/could afford others in it the opportunity to take extended leave of abscense as they did. For Peter was partners with James/John in Luke 5:8-11 and there were connections.

now if He knew the hearts of men, why wouldn't He also know what awaited HIm in the next town...if He knew where the donkey he would ride was standing, how does it stand to reason that He didn't know where He would sleep that night...point being that we can't make the jump you did and still stay within the context of what scripture says about the Lord

Again, you're not staying within the context of scripture. For if one's going to ask questions as you do about what Jesus knew, one must also deal with the texts of scripture FULLY on instances where he did not..and where certain things he only knew through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, one's already making a Jump in asserting instances of Jesus knowing certain things (i.e. thoughts of men's hearts, donkey) and extending that to all other instances in the life of Christ. That's like saying
"Every Swan is a Bird...therefore, all birds are swans"

And on the issue of knowing (as if knowing one instance means one will automatically know another), how did Peter "know" what Ananias and Sapphira did? Could not Jesus have the same revelation of the Holy Spirit without omniscience? There's the other issue of some things being intentionally blocked from knowledge even for Jesus, as Matthew 24:35-37 / Matthew 24 when it comes to the end/knowing the time of Gods Return...and of course, the issue with the woman who touched Jesus and he did not know it due to the crowd, as seen in Luke 8:44-46/ Luke 8

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

razzelflabben said:
razzelflabben said:

. I'll address things when they relate to what I actually said... actually, I have thought about this a great bit, but you are still missing what I actually said and how it relates to the topic....

Click to expand...

If/when you actually deal with what is being said, then you can talk about it "relating"--as you're not follwing the topic, as well as going past anything I was discussing.

As was stated in context, on the point of what I said/ how it relates to the point another (not you) said whom I was agreeing with. As I said clearly before:

razzelflabben said:
Would have to disagree when it comes to saying Jesus was not well-off financially...and personally, it's always amazing when people try to make it out as if Christ did not have a significant job. For He was a carpenter, Mark 6:2-4 Mark 6 --and the son of one as well, Matthew 13:54-56 / Matthew 13

When studying Jewish culture, others forget that the role of the son was to take on the family trade of the Father...and as His father (Joseph) was a Carpenter for many.

razzelflabben said:

Be careful, Jesus said His father was God not Joseph, which means He would be in the business of loving people, not making furniture, at least on the merit of the premise here.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I was making a point to another that it's odd for people to say that Jesus had no trade or job (as did his father with being a Carpenter)---and when you responded on the issue in saying that he would not have been in the business of "making furniture" (as oppossed to loving people, that is when response was given to yourself on how it is not mutually exclusive for CHrist to have been in the business of making furniture and loving people...nor was it the case that Joseph was not considered the father of Christ/Jesus not acknowledging such in one way or another (as it relates to an earthly sense).

So please do not try to make it out as if nothing related to what was said. If you meant otherwise, however, please be more clear next time.

hummm????and your point???

Click to expand...

Again, if it's that beyond you, you need to sit down/think and then come back. It's not that difficult, Bruh, to get it.

? I think in context, my comments stand firm...when one has a vibrant business and leaves it for another adventure, either someone else runs the business, or it falls into painful straights
....that is just the nature of business both now and then.....

Click to expand...

And in the case of Peter/James and John, having others take care of it is what went down.

Matthew 4:21-23 Matthew 4

The Calling of the First Disciples

18As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 20At once they left their nets and followed him.

21Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them, 22and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.

Jesus Heals the Sick

23Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Mark 1:19-21 Mark 1

The Calling of the First Disciples

14After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

16As 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.

Again, as I have never said otherwise, then there seems to be no reason as to why you're arguing against the point----as its more than likely that because the business was in the hands of their well-off father, James and John (alongside Peter, who was their partner) could walk away and come back to work when their season of following Jesus extensively was done. And that's exactly what they did in John 21:1. Hence, never was it the case that their business fell apart--as you ORIGINALLY stated at one point when trying to argue the point that their following Jesus meant everything fell apart. As you said in no uncertain terms to me when I was addressing another:

Some Other Factors To Consider....

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

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..

Click to expand...

Again, that comment was in direct response to what I stated when making clear that the businesses the disciples ran were doing well/they had things in order for them to leave for awhile...and have something to go back to. How else was the comment to be taken----especially as it was dealing with an extensive post concerning the economic times/status of those in certain professions and what they could and could not have performed/gotten away with in the field?

I
How is it, then, that when it's discussed that their business did not fall apart necessarily, the argument switches as if you've been supportative/lending credibility for the idea that the business did not fall apart.....despite the fact that you've been coming against it consistently for a good bit now? And if you've always been for the idea of their business not falling apart, then why in the world are you arguing pointlessly over it?

Additionally, for anyone actually having to RUN a businness, when one has saved up enough for emergency or leaves of abscense, it's not that difficult to walk away for a time/have things in order. One would have to be outside of reality to think otherwise..especially for those who actually are leaders in the realm of business and make clear that in times of crisis, find ways to make your money work for ya.

so your whole theology is based on what the men used to do for a living and not how their lives and calling changed after Jesus called them to follow...

okay, a bit short sighted for my liking, but you have the right to go that road if you like..

Click to expand...

As you do not know what my entire theology is (or have even acknowledged/shown you understand it), moot point. But Again, no one denies that the men changed...as they learned what it was to not rely solely on their trades/professions to see God do radical things on their behalf. They learned to seek the Lord in faith/His Kingdom and watch the Lord come through. And some of those lessons were always amazing... though they often fell into willfull disbelief...for in example, one need only to consider the myriad of occasions that Christ multiplied resources on behalf of His disciples and those following Him----and yet, when the same problem arose, it was always astounding seeing how the same mentality of disbelief/asking "How is it possible to feed all of these people, Lord??!!"in Matthew 16/Matthew 16:2 since even after the feeding of many, CHRIST DID IT AGAIN with 4,000 and yet here they doubted whether He could feed another large group too (Matthew 15:4 Matthew 15:32-39, Mark 8:1-10/Mark 8:26 )Mark 6 /Mark 6:51-53
---and on other instances, things Christ said were more than clear and He was more than open about people being "dull" on the matter/slow to believe, Matthew 15:15-17/ Matthew 15 Mark 7:18/Mark 7 Matthew 16:10-12 / Matthew 16 /Mark 8:13-15 / Mark 8 /John 3:9-11 John 3/John 4:47-49/ John 4 /Matthew 17:16-18 / Matthew 17 /Luke 9:40-42 / Luke 9

And after growing up as a statistic/being considered one who'd not make it because of my background, what Jesus taught was more than real/applicable. For I've seen the same things in my life when it comes to trusting the Lord. So to claim one being "short-sighted" seems misplaced (to say the least)

What is of note, however, is your proving from scripture that they never went back to their trades/jobs after Christ and still served him---as that's assumption on your part. And again, the issue is having a trade/how that impacts discipleship. If you wish to do arguments via simplification to something no one has said, that's your choice.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

But it is not a far-fetched idea to say that just because the disciples followed Jesus for a season/left everything behind doesn't mean they had nothing to go back to once he was gone (as in working a job/trade to pay the bills and aid in the growth of the church)--or that they never did so. One example to consider would be Simon the Zealot ( Luke 6:14-16 / Luke 6 / Matthew 10:3-5 / Matthew 10 /Mark 3:17-19 Mark 3 ), who was the "terrorist" of the group (and most likely a problem, especially when dealing with tax-collectors and understanding the History between them and the Zealots..already against government in a myriad of ways

). On a side note, if looking at scripture, it's intriguing seeing how even the people Christ chose were among those who came from DIFFERENT Camps--some who were against GOVERNMENTS and others that were all for it, as seen when HE simultaneouly chose both ZEALOTS and TAX-Collectors to be apart of His inner circle---despite how BOTH sides had significant issue with the other, with Zealots wishing to overthrow Rome and feeling as if Tax-Collectors had "Sold out". And as Levi/Matthew was a Tax-Collector, one has to wonder how much there were times of starring each other down/him feeling uneasy around someone who was known to support others killing off folks in his line of work---regardless of how successful he was at it

But back to the point, Simon was called a "Zealot" in his lifestyle before ministry with Jesus, probably a member of the Zealot party, which was a party determined to overthrow Roman Domination in Palestine. Interestingly enough, the "Zealot" term is still used for the man AFTER Christ rose from the Grave Acts 1:13, Acts 1:12-14 Acts 1 .IMHO, it gives room to indicate that even after being in the midst of Jesus, that which he may have been known for was probably with him to one degree or another---such as still possibly wishing for Rome to be overthrown or having sympathies for those against Roman Oppression. When considering how the man died, some say he was martyred---whereas others say that he was involved in a Jewish revolt against the Romans, , which was brutally suppressed in A.D 70. If knowing of the work by Robert Eisenman (Eisenman 1997 pp 33-4), he pointed out the contemporary talmudic references to Zealots as kanna'im "but not really as a group — rather as avenging priests in the Temple." For more info, one can look up the work entitled James the Brother of Jesus : The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Viking Penguin). But on Simon, when Jesus called him, nowhere is there sign that there was an immediate change over night..especially considering how often they argued amongst themselves...nor that all he did before ceased. The same's possible with the others---and again, if nothing else, the text of John 20-21 is clear on them being able to go back to their old jobs since they all went back fishing after the Lord had died. And as that was a good way to make income/provide for others in the Early Church, no need to assume that it was not possible for them to have picked it back up for the sake of ministry/provision from time to time.

. I didn't suggest otherwise, I'll address this further when you start acknowledging some idea of what I actually said. a

When you do so first on your part/pay attention rather than reading into what I said or not dealing with it. As it is, it's inconsistent on your part since the entire comment you just quoted me on dealt DIRECTLY with the issue of what you quoted me on further/said you had issue with---which the idea (that you consider a "double-standard") that the circumstances of Mary/Joseph (when he had to take time off from work) are not necessarily the same as those of Jesus when he took time off from work

nd here is my problem...you say this of Mary and Joseph but refuse to accept the same of Jesus and the disciples....why the double standard?

Its only a double-standard when you're not paying attnetion to what was said CLEARLY...as you're assuming that the same stance Joseph had was what all others in all other trades had. That's no more logical than saying all of the circumstances for every businessman are the same....even though there are plenty who have crisis happen when they start out and others having crisis occur in times when they are good. One's level of finance can indeed differ...

Based on what Joseph and Mary were able to do and why it was significant for them to recieve the gifts they did--as well as scripture indicating what they could afford AT THE TIME (Luke 2, Matthew 1), there's no indication they were well off at the moment

razzelflabben said:
razzelflabben said:

Easy G (G²);54131347 said:

????it is a stretch to say that if the disciples didn't know where Jesus house was, they either weren't as close to Him as they thought and we are told, or He didn't own the house....I mean, how is it reading into the text to say that if 12 guys are with a dude every single day, intimate with him, that they don't know where His house is....you honestly don't think they never got to gether at Jesus house to party, eat together, play scrabble, wait for Him to change His clothes...

at I said is that it is unreasonable to think that 12 guys that close to Jesus would not know where He lived, if indeed the house was His and not just a lodging He was using for the season.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Again, context.
John 1

Jesus' First Disciples

35The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!" 37When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"
They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"
39"Come," he replied, "and you will see."

So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

40Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). 42And he brought him to Jesus.

In John 1, the disciples who went to Jesus were not "buddy buddy"---and there is no record of them being on intimate terms with him. Intimacy happen as they came after him to FOLLOW him and be discipled...and all else is speculation. When they came to Jesus to ask where he was staying, that was an INITIAL encounter that would later give basis for their adventures later on when the other details (i.e. at parties, as in John 2 with the wedding in Cana, traveling, etc).

You're close to the Rabbi you study under....not every Rabbi.

And for other things to consider (for clarification), Jesus was in Capernum at the time rather than in his hometown of Nazareth when he met the disciples of John. If he was traveling often in look of work or for other reasons, then of course his whereabouts would never be certain. If doing contracting work as a carpenter/mason, he may have stayed at certain places overnight (i.e. renting a home)--or, for that matter, choosing to live in the homes he chose to build for others.

so you really think that it is reasonable for your close friends and confidents to not know where you live? ay then, and you accuse me of reading into the text what is not there. None of my close friends and confidants do not know where I live, they all know, I don't even try to keep it a secret from them, in fact, it is a common question asked very early on in a relationship that is becoming close. But if you really think that is an odd thing to know about someone close to you, I don't really know what to say, I hope your family never moves without telling you where they are moving to, because these men were like a family with one another and you want me to believe that you are not reading into the text to assume that Jesus might have moved without telling them He was or where He was going

Click to expand...

Bruh

There are plenty of close friends who did not know where I lived for a very long time---as we didn't go over to houses for a good bit often. As we got closer, then information on where we lived was shared and we got to know each other very well. And the same thing with others. But outside of that, you're again going off the assumption that the disciples were ALREADY close when they decided to follow Jesus on John's orders. That's nowhere in the text.

THey may respect him, they may admire him...but nowhere was it the case they were FRIENDS/CLOSE to him. That's why they later chose to follow Him and later found out where he lived/was. And of course, if he moved, those who WERE close to him would have known of it. Those who followed him/chose to study his life (as the disciples did later) would have eventually known about where he was going next---as he was very mobile. But there's no basis in the text to assume that because the disciples chose to follow him meant that they were already "close" to him and knew who he was. As the Messiah and already knowing how others would come to follow him on a "thrill seeker basis", of course its established that he did not want all to often know where he was at-----and some places he went, he wanted to keep his prescence secret, as seen in Mark 7:23-25 Even his own brothers did not understand why he often chose to remain "underground", as seen in

John 7:3-5 /

3Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. 4No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." 5For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

Click to expand...

Jesus, again, was very much an "underground" kat many times...

Got a question for you, if Jesus was intending to keep His home a secret, why did they ask, expecting and answer and why did Jesus who had been keeping the secret, suddenly tell them?

Click to expand...

Focus please, as the issue was never about Jesus planning on keeping his home/where he was at a secret from those FOLLOWING him. There is privacy to consider. But as the disciples came to FOLLOW Christ, of course he revealed himself to them and they got INTIMATE with him over the night. Plenty of people, however, who came to Jesus and yet they were faking sincerity---with him often TURNING THEM AWAY from him and not obliging their requests. So again, don't argue against what I never said. I said that there's no reason to assume that all in the town knew where Jesus lived and that, therefore, no need to assume the disciples knew either....until they asked to know Jesus/He knew where they stood.

now there has been a lot of talk about flaming, and this could be considered your attempt to attack my character, so I'm gonna hope your above all that. ?

Click to expand...

Again, if you're going to be paranoid on the issue, that's your choice.

As it is, its hypocritical since the first post you wrote to me had mockery in it/blasting it from the jump.

I am the one who said that it was possible that He was renting (or at least I suggested it) it is also possible that He was invited to stay with a friend and accepted...what is not of high probability is that He owned the home, because if He had owned it, those close to Him would most likely have known where it was....

Click to expand...

Again, when you can show from the context (as well as the culture) that carpenters could not have owned homes, then you have a case. As it is, it seems more than clear you just don't want to believe could have owned a home. And again, you're assumption hinders you from seeing such since you assumed from the jump that the disciples in John 1 were close to him. Of course, as they got close to him later, they could have easily found out.

Even with the issue of renting, as I never was against that theory since the issue of Biblical Prosperity is being able to take care of yourself/have provision, Jesus could have easily had it be the case where he rented a home and had finance to do that. As he hated getting crowds many times and would often retreat from them, it is more than reasonable to surmise that privacy was also a big deal...hence, not telling all where you live.

. nothing in that equals that He owned the house.

Click to expand...

And again, culture/context...and for that matter, none of what you said negates the possibility.

no problem for what I said....Hummmm....a family home with lots of brothers and sisters who are not contributing to the family wealth?
I would love that culture, my brother would be supporting us right now, and we wouldn't have to work....how cool is that!!!!! oh, and while your trying to work your way out of that pickle you made for yourself,

Click to expand...

Judging by the comments, I do question whether or not you've seriously ever lived on the streets or in impoverished situations with people who have had the same (i.e. extended families or families with many siblings in one roof/some doing nothing but taking up space)...as it happens often, Bruh

And for that matter, it does demonstrate a lack of comprehension on the issue if not understanding/factoring in that all in the family may not be at the LEVEL or ability to make income necessary to provide--just as in other households where only one or 2 out of 12 are old enough to have a job while the rest are in highschool.

Had you actually lived in the projects, you'd know that. Regardless If you're going to mock, at least do so knowing the facts first.
.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

Originally Posted by razzelflabben
try showing me how the culture did not use home to indicate country, city, etc....I'd love to see that, especially with verses like...Luke 4:24 where the strong's reference says that country can also mean, fixed abode or home.........
1) one's native country
a) one's fatherland, one's own country, a fixed abode or home
b) one's own native place i.e. a city

Luke 4:24
"I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown

If you're going to try to do a "Strongs" action of saying "Well, it has multiple meanings so it must mean the same meaning I WANT to choose...", please go back and show where it was the case that in ALL cases "home" was indicative of country/fatherland. For its established that "hometown" means "native land/country"--though what needs to be seen is that every instance of "home" means "native country", especially when dealing with CONTEXT OF houses as in places on lives rather than towns of residence. By your logic, every instance in the Word where one went to his own "home" one can say/infer that they went back to their own country--yet for the instances where context shows they were already OUT of their country, home cannot ALWAYS mean "native land"

And for the context in which I said my original statements:

razzelflabben said:
But people should make no mistake that Jesus was AT HOME/Had somewhere to live...for It's already the case that often Jesus would instruct the disciples in the privacy of the home--as seen in Mark 4:33-35 Mark 7:17 , etc).

razzelflabben said:

this could refer to home as in general location, I have a Haitian friend, when he goes home, he refers to going back to Haiti, not his apartment in Brooklyn....it could also refer to close friends, like some of ours, who we are always at home with when we visit, even to going into the house and making ourselves comfortable when they are not there....point being we can't read toooo much into what is written that we base an entire theology on what we want it to say....not accusing anyone here, just offering a balance to the extremes....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:
Again, there was a context to the discussion--and my comments were clearly in regards to how when the text says "Jesus entered the house" or "went home" that it does not always mean in the same sense that we say today of our culture...as the Jewish writers did not always have the same dynamics. If they said "Jesus entered the house", it is without basis to say "Well, perhaps it meant that he went to his home country like we do today"....and the context is more than clear that "home" in not talking about one's native country---as if so many came to the native country of Jesus that there was no room in the borders of that nation to house them all. As the text says:

Mark 3:11

And when() his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, "He() is out of his mind."

Mark 3:20
[ Jesus and Beelzebub ] Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.
Mark 3:19-21

Mark 7:17

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.

Mark 7:24
[ The Faith of a Syrophoenician Woman ] Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret.
Mark 7:23-25

Luke 10:38
[ At the Home of Martha and Mary ] As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him.
Luke 10:37-39 /

Regarding the context of "hometown", it was already clear that Jesus was not in his HOMETOWN at the time he was in Capernum---as he went there later and got rejected, as seen in Mark 6:1-3

Additionally, as scripture is clear, the disciples already had homes (not hometowns) to go to

John 20:10
[ Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene ] Then the disciples went back to their homes,
John 20:9-11

But for the sake of technicality, show in the instances I brought up concerning Jesus's HOME (not HOMETOWN), what each meant. For that was the context---that when saying "Then Jesus went home" or "Jesus came out of the HOUSE" (within the larger context of it already stating he went to his hometown), that it means "native country"..especially seeing how often he traveled

razzelflabben said:

have you ever done this, lived the life of the poor...in this country especially, the poor are shoved aside, we try to make poverty in this country invisible...which only adds to the things you typed above....it sounds like you had an exciting class btw, and learned much...

Click to expand...

Yes, I have lived the life of the poor. Biological father was homeless for some time...and my Mother (who's Black Hispanic) had me out of wedlock and tried to raise me as a single-mother trying to make it through Medical School. Had many times where God did the miraculous, though many times where the Supernatural came only after we had done what he had instructed to do in the Natural (i.e working a job, paying the bills, sowing/reaping, etc). Rose up in the levels of class/social status and benefited greatly when growing up as we learned about many of the principles we learned in the Faith Movement/Biblical Prosperity, but never forgot where we came from---and never forgot the realities of being impoverished, especially seeing how that was a really big deal among minoritiy communities. It's why I chose to become a Human Services Professional......and why I've done work with ministries who do work among the poor.

Did my Senior Internship at an organization aiding those on the streets and working in the Children's Church department with impoverished children at the organization called-City of Refuge-Bringing Hope to Those Who Live on the Margin. For there, I worked under a man by the name of Pendelton Brown---who has done work with other Well Known WOF Advocates such as Jentzeen Franklin and other ministries outside of the camp......and during my work with him at something known as "Kids Mix"---we'd go into the projects and pick up the children to work with them personally in games/activities for Christ.

And on the class, indeed, it was one of my favorites.

what if Christ, as you point out, did things that to us were crazy, did have money, let's say for the sake of argument He made what to us would be 100,000 or more a year, wouldn't it be totally probable that He gave it all to the poor, including but not limited to the money He needed for a house?

I mean, isn't that consistent with the image we are given of real love, Christ's love?

Click to expand...

If God called him to do that, then by all means...though the same could work he if chose to not give it all away to the poor--rather using his home as a "halfway house" to provide shelter for the destitute or living in his home while teaching others how to live prosperous/survive just as many today do. In the field of Social Work, the same has happened with one of the founders of the movement, known as Jane Addams and her Hull Houseswhich involved the rich voluntarily going into POOR communities/buying property to create homes that the poor could live in. It was an experimental model of reform trying solutions to see what would work and committed to full- and part-time residents to keep in touch with the neighborhoods real needs, Jane Addams built Hull-House into an institution. For more info, Jane Addams biography & Jane Addams College of Social Work & Jane Addams Hull House Association. Another great example of such would be a ministry I'm connected with known as Urban Concern-by a mnistry known as Xenos, a Christian inner-city charity recognized by President George H. Bush in his Thousand Points of Lights awards. The ministry of Xenos is a non-denominational/cell-church based (home church) fellowship which has done extensive work for those in the inner city-and together with Columbus city government and business leaders, Xenos has been continually expanding their work with the inner city in amazing ways. In 2007, Xenos constructed a Christian school and community center in the inner cityand now also provides two free clinics for the underprivileged in the Columbus area. For more info, go to Xenos Annual Reports & Xenos Free Clinics. There are other examples today of organizations/churches having the same kind of impact.as its one of the reasons why faith-based initiatives have been receiving funding from the government in the work they do-as well as para-church ministries and non-profit organizations when it comes to things such as domestic abuse shelters, food pantries, medical-clinics in the inner-city and many other things. In example, Dave Wilkerson wrote a book not too long ago known as Cross and Switchbladedetailing his work in the Inner City with those who were destituteand how the Lord worked mightily to aid them powerfully. From there, he was able to make Teen Challenge ( ) , which is an evangelical Christian recovery program and a network of Christian social / evangelizing work centers aiding those whore drug addicts, alcoholics, gang members, prostitutes and people with life-controlling problems. Another similar to it is one I've enjoyed seeing---known as "HomeBoy Industries", which does work with the impoverished and gangs in LA.

But It all comes down to what God calls others to do individually.....

In example, one cannot help but think on how many times Jesus asked others to come & follow Him---with words for those who either made excuses or were slow to answer the call ( Luke 9:56-58 / / John 12:25-27 )----and yet, there were other times when others could have made it "formula"/felt that they needed to go follow Jesus wherever He went......with the Lord actually turning people away from Him and telling them to remain where they were at.

Where all called to leave everything behind and travel with Jesus as with the disciples when they gave up their livelihoods to do missionary work? Were all called to follow Him wherever He went when he traveled?

When reading scripture, it's interesting to see how some actually were turned down by Christ/told to simply chill where they were at. Actually occurred in Mark 5:17-19 with the demon possessed man who begged Jesus to let him follow the Lord wherever he went as with others whom received the call/opportunity---but Jesus told him to stay in his hometown and simply be a light for him there. Some, after Jesus healed them, chose to follow him wherever he went (Mark 10:51-52 / ). The same dynamics occurred with the woman who anointed Jesus with her expensive perfume....for the disciples had already witnessed Jesus calling others to give up their riches for Him as with the Rich Young Ruler..and they understood how others could not serve both God and Materialism. Yet, the woman at his feet was rebuked sharply by them for what they viewed as a "waste" ( John 12:1-3 /Mark 14:2-4 // / Matthew 26:6-8/ )---thinking it could be used for other endeavors that were "godly" like helping the poor. Of course giving to the poor is a necessity/sign of love for the Lord---but what they were missing was the reality of INTIMACY and walking in step with Him, as there were times where others would not be called upon to give to the poor as with others.

Is it not possible that there are things in Life which are matters of obeying the Lord because He asked us to do something specific (As with the rich young ruler being asked to give up riches as a test of obediance) to show love for Him while there can be others where nothing has been asked at all by the Lord as with others & yet we're still given opportunity to do--with it having no bearing on how the Lord views us? __________________

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54132634 said:
Is it not possible that there are things in Life which are matters of obeying the Lord because He asked us to do something specific (As with the rich young ruler being asked to give up riches as a test of obediance) to show love for Him while there can be others where nothing has been asked at all by the Lord as with others & yet we're still given opportunity to do--with it having no bearing on how the Lord views us? __________________

Continuning, many believers in the Early Church were VERY much well-to-do---as communal living was involving meeting in one another homes and ensuring that none among them LACKED anything....not that all were on the same income level There was Equity--and RICH Christians among those who were not. Some great examples of such would be Acts 4:35-37 / Acts 4,...and of course:

I Timothy 6:17
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life

The context was one in which those who were rich were not showing their love by simply focusing on riches and never giving to others...and the demonstration of love would be to be exceddingly generous. If that could be a clear example of love, then for me it also makes sense that even with Jesus being considered "well off", he would have been consistent with the image of love if he was rich and yet gave in abundance--as well as aiding others/teaching others how to rise up and be able to provide for themselves, as many do for the poor. That would be consistent with the OT commands of how it was that love was to be shown to those who were without....as it relates to any kind of of benevolence ministry.. as the Word notes, in ancient Israel debt/giving generously was a function of survival and a ministry to the poor...for those without any other survival options were forced to borrow...consequently leading to the creation of lending systems established as liberally as possible. A believer would not charge interest ( Exodus 22:25 /Ezekiel 22:11-13/ Ezekiel 22 ), remove items necessary for one’s livelihood (Deut. 24:10-14 ), and one would forgive all debts every seven years (Deut. 15:1).

Leviticus 25:35-37 Leviticus 25
35 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind [a] from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. 37 You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.

Deuteronomy 23:19-21/ Deuteronomy 23
Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.

The same goes for widows/orphans being taken care of---as God had SHARP words when it didn't get done.

But on the issue of riches, nowhere in the scriptures---whether with Abraham (our spiritual father in the faith), Job, Solomon or various others---is there example where the Lord condemned those who were made rich and delighting in what He gave for His glory. And in fact, nowhere in the scriptures is there any evidence where ALL rich christians were called to give up their riches.

Part of me also has to wonder on the issue of what would've happened if one tried to make a formula out of what occured with the Rich Young Ruler concerning repentance/greed as if that was the norm for all. When reading the story of the Rich Young Ruler, it's always a trip seeing the way in which Jesus interacted with the man.

Mark 10:21

The Little Children and Jesus

13People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

The Rich Young Man

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'[d]"

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

28Peter said to him, "We have left everything to follow you!" 29"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

Mark 10:20-22 (in Context) Mark 10

And for the other story which was radically different from that in regards to what was asked of another who was rich:

Luke 19/Luke 19:13

Zacchaeus the Tax Collector

1Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. 4So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.

5When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." 6So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a 'sinner.' "

8But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."

9Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."

The Parable of the Ten Minas

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

Had this been a one-size fits all approach, then Zach would've been in trouble for not following the Rich Rulers's command from Christ. But that's not what the Lord required of Him---and to note, what the LORD--not MAN or the DISCIPLES THOUGHT was BEST--was required, as only the Lord can weigh the hearts of men. But what the Lord knew Zach needed was for simple restitution----and to be clear, there're many other examples in the Word concerning rich believers/those in a myriad of situations...... And that's why when it comes to looking at Biblical Examples, one must go by a Case By Case Basis...for it's truly a matter of what the Lord's calling you to do..
__________________
__________________

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54132726 said:
... And that's why when it comes to looking at Biblical Examples, one must go by a Case By Case Basis...for it's truly a matter of what the Lord's calling you to do..
__________________
__________________

One should be ready to give it up at a moment's notice should the Lord personally call them to. But nothing sinful in deligihtin g in it.

Ecclesiastes 5

Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink, and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given himfor this is his lot. 19 Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his workthis is a gift of God. 20 He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart.

__________________
Moreover, if/when wealth is involved, the focus must be how to aid others.

Proverbs 31:1
8 "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves,
for the rights of all who are destitute.
9 Speak up and judge fairly;
defend the rights of the poor and needy."

Psalm 72:2,
Endow the king with your justice, O GodHe will judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justiceHe will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressorhe will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight.

At my church---which is known as "Liberty Church of Marietta, GA" under Pastor John Fichtner and Joseph Garlington, we're very much in support of Biblical Prosperity and what was advocated in the Faith Movement----just as many other camps are within the Body of Christ. Yet we're also against the Unbiblical Version of "Selfish Gain"/Materialism and the Love of Money. And when it comes to 3rd world nations, we actually have a Pastor associated with our church who's known as Apostle Wilson Kulaba. If interested, one can go here to listen to him speak ....and for more info, would suggest looking up under the name of Wilson Kulaba Ministries Uganda

I've prayed with the man before---and seeing the fruit of their ministry over the years, it has been nothing but blessing. For Apostle Kulaba has birthed over 80 churches in Uganda and is a powerful speaker and one anointed in prophecy and miracles. He's from Uganda/lives there and has visited our church family for years---as he's one of the Missionaries we aid in ministry and whose ministry we're also advocating within our fellowship. He helped sponsor mission trips from our church to there for a good while now (one of which my mother went out 2 years ago and that impacted her tremendously, seeing that she was the only OB-Gyn Doctor on the trip and gave seminars/testimonies to aid the locals there)---and we've seen Biblical Prosperity benefit those over there when it came to resouces being needed to aid the churches down there and seeing RADICAL ways that materials were provided/people were impacted (i.e. homes built, wells being dug, children being sponsored/adopted that may have been involved in the Lord's Revolution Army and the "Child Soldier" war occuring there, etc). Of course, the basis for the work there is the theme of one of God's Highest priorities.. Deuteronomy 10:17-19, Deuteronomy 24:17, Psalm 10:18, Psalm 68:5, Isaiah 1:17, Isaiah 58 Jeremiah 5:27-29, James 1:27,

But you get (I hope) where I'm coming from. Of course, they in other impoverished places may never be at the spot where they're middle class and up. But that was never the goal of "prosperity". Concerning when Biblical Prosperity is taught, I think folks forget that it does not mean making a case that being Prosperous means all are on the same economic level or have LOADS of things in extravagence. For as Oral Roberts said best:

Prosperity is the possession of everything you need for yourself and loved ones with enough surplus to give to those who need help. If you have only the bare necessities, you are not prosperous. And if you have all the sufficiencies of life but no more, that is not prosperity. But, if you have everything you need with something left over for the poor, that is prosperity. If, after you have paid the tithe, you have enough for offerings to spread the gospel and help the needy, that is prosperity

Oral Roberts, My Favorite Bible Scriptures, (Tulsa: Oral Roberts Evangelist Association, 1963), 51.

And as Kenneth Hagin said best in his book "The Midas Touch", "If spirituality was based on prosperity, then drug dealers would be prosperous"..

On Biblical Prosperity, there's an understanding that even then it was never the case that God's Blessing meant that all poverty would be erased for all in the community at all times---for there was a system the Lord would bless where many would be blessed to take care of those who may be lacking (often due to circumstances outside of people's control, injustice, etc) rather than all on the same level...the entire issue of Equity verses Equality, that the Lord has blessed some at times above others so that they can bless many---just as it was with others such as Joseph, Nehemiah and various other examples in scripture.

Deuteronomy 15:11
If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, 8 but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. 9 Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand, and your eye be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry out to the LORD against you, and it become sin among you. 10 You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your works and in all to which you put your hand. 11

For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.
Deuteronomy 15:10-12

Leviticus 19:10
And you shall not glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather every grape of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19

Leviticus 23:22
When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 23 (Whole Chapter)

Deuteronomy 24:20-22
When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.

James 1

Trials and Temptations

2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.

9The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. 10But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. 11For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.

12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

__________________

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54132894 said:
On Biblical Prosperity, there's an understanding that even then it was never the case that God's Blessing meant that all poverty would be erased for all in the community at all times---for there was a system the Lord would bless where many would be blessed to take care of those who may be lacking (often due to circumstances outside of people's control, injustice, etc) rather than all on the same level...the entire issue of Equity verses Equality, that the Lord has blessed some at times above others so that they can bless many---just as it was with others such as Joseph, Nehemiah and various other examples in scripture.

2 Corinthians 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.

2 Corinthians 8:8-10 2 Corinthians 8
Quote:

8And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9As it is written:

"He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor;
his righteousness endures forever."[a]

10Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness. 11You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.

12This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of God's people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God. 13Because of the service by which you have proved yourselves, men will praise God for the obedience that accompanies your confession of the gospel of Christ, and for your generosity in sharing with them and with everyone else. 14And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you. 15Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!

Quote:

Okay, I'm gonna say something here that is sure to get me into trouble, but I'm gonna say it anyway....and no, I am not referring to anyone in particular, just in general....way too many people, in the church as well as out, would never dream of living with the poor because in doing so,they would not feel superior, or they would have consciences that would force them to give their excess and thus could not call themselves rich any longer....standing back and looking in, puts a buffer around us that we can deny. Giving a dollar here and a dollar there eases our consciences, and we get to keep all our wealth without the guilt feelings...

More than agree on the issue---and of course, some of the things stated people would possibly say you're a "socialist" (as I've often seen sadly) for thinking such.

For some excellent info on the issue, check out this video entitled Three Degrees of Separation ---as it dealt with the generational differences between three Evangelical leaders well known for their work concerning Faith/Politics and the Poor. Also, there's actually an entire organization that is very much based on the concept of radical living for Jesus----called Red Letter Christian ---in regards to many of the principles and teachings of Jesus (i.e. loving your neighbor as Good Samaritans, Loving Mercy/Justice, Associating with those who're considered "Sinners"/social outcasts, Kingdom of God, etc). Of course, I'm aware that this is a sensitive issue for all. Being a Human Services Professional alongside one that's also for Christian Humanism/Horizontal outreach in all things, my views also tend to lean certain ways on things...as I'm more so in line with things akin to the "Christian Left" and others for social democratic thought. And so are others such as Jim Wallis---(and for more info, his main webpage is found here, Sojourners : About Us/ )—-as he wrote the book entitled “God Politics: When the Right gets it WRONG and the Left doesn’t GET IT” ., which I own alongside own many of the man's books (including the one entitled "Faith Works" which dealt with running faith-based organizations....and the other one entitled "Soul of Politics", which was much more intensive than "God Politics: When the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It" since it dealt with his life growing up among those who're impoverished and experiecing life during the Civil Rights Movement, as well as offering practical solutions to the issues of our times..

People are often unaware of how when Jesus arrived on the scene, his actions affected the entire economical system--including those that often oppressed others. And for more info, one can go to Nazareth's rebellious son: deviance and downward mobility in the Galilean Jesus movement. Very solid points concerning the dynamics that Jesus may have encountered when doing work among the impoverished/challenging many of the norms of his day that would have kept the impoverished from recieving help (especially in regards to his beginning social networking among others to look out for their own). Though I disagree with the view that the disciples were already barely getting by.....as other historical factors seemed to be left out in the article.

I'd have to say that it can get sticky when it comes to others believing those saying being rich is a bad thing---as it's already odd seeing how often those in the states claiming to not be "rich" would be considered such in nations around the world that don't have as much. But for many, they don't want to give or live among the poor because they don't really want to see what it's like...or have to feel in debt to aiding others to get out of it. Poverty is radically different when it goes from statistics to having a FACE one must see-----and many, thankfully, who were rich saw what life was like...living among them yet also not GLORIFYING THE LIFESTYLE..as poor people do not WANT to be poor. It's not a blessing having to live from pay-check to pay-check, not being able to put food on the table for the kids, not having school supplies like pencils and backpacks that others well-off have and having to feel stereotyped. And many are simply looking for others to either help to get out of it/have the opportunity to have a better life.

Some can get very embittered with those who often don't care to live among the poor---yet they tell them to come out of it to their level. That I highly disagree with---and within the Black Church, this is a significant issue. Something I've noticed over the years.....is that when it comes to certain messages, many times people fail to take notice of the groups attracted to or blessed by it/what the message meant to them. And on the issue of DEBT/POVERTY, generally it was those who were GOING THROUGH and feeling hopeless in a myriad of ways (i.e. not being able to place food on the table, not being able to afford any clothing/school supplies for the kids, not being able to give generously to those areas in the Kingdom on their heart because their own bills/money issues are too much to handle, always living pay-check to pay-check and not being able to really save anything up for the future due to always having immediate needs/survival at stake). Growing up impoverished and moving up later in time, it's something that's a sensitive issue....especially in the Black Community where issues of impoverishment are often MOST prevalent....and many times IGNORED (often by the same people who critique the Faith Movement). Those listening to the message were blessed by it because of how it impacted their lives practically/aided them in being better Kingdom Citizens..

The reason some were blessed by the message is because of how it aided them in the financial situations/seeing God operate powerfully on their behalf. It can be annoying at times to see people respond as if folks are just making stuff up out of NOWHERE and not seeing results---or all that's the focus for others is "MONEY MONEY!!!!." But again, for most of the people who say such things, it's amazing to see how quickly people change when it's THEIR SON OR DAUGHTER who cannot afford basic medical treatment because mom got sick/had to skip work---with the consequence being that she did not get paid for that day of work.....and thus lose that paycheck that was going to make a difference in one already struggling to have a LIVING-Wage.

For as I witnessed growing up, there was a reason why many were impacted the cultural issues of Prosperity Theology for Black Church here in the WEST---and why it's the case that Prosperity Theology has impacted the Black Church the way that it has...........especially as it relates to most blacks wishing to leave impoverished conditions and moving to the Surburbs (also known as "Black Flight")--and loving the image of successful blacks in economics who are good stewards of finances/resources for themselves and the community---but in the process, for those blacks fleeing from the streets, creating a cultural problem for the Inner City when it comes to the streets not having much support in developing.

As said best by "Christianity Today":

Urban blacks have been following the pattern of so-called "white flight" for the past several decades, leaving the city for the suburbs as they reach the middle class. Now their churches are beginning to follow, church leaders and observers say.

"Traditionally, African Americans were driving back to the home church in the central city," said Michael Emerson, founding director of the Center on Race, Religion, and Urban Life at Rice University. "But as you get into the second generation, they don't want to drive back to where they aren't from. That trend is only going to continue as you leave poverty behind."
Suburban churches are also attractive because they have a more contemporary model of worship, often including ministries such as after-school programs for children, according to Derrick Harkins, pastor of Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

But when churches leave, they take with them a lot of services, funds, and charity work, said Lawrence Mamiya, professor of religion and Africana studies at Vassar College. "Black churches," he said, "have been the major institution in the black communities—the only stable institution to have emerged from slavery."

For more info, one can go to "Black progressives flee to conservative suburbs"( ) and "Black Flight:
African American churches leave the inner city for the suburbs." ( ). __________________

One can also go check out the following article on CNN entitled Modern black church shuns King's message - CNN.com...alongside 'Prosperity Gospel' is the Greatest Threat to Black Churches, Says .... Also, Prosperity theology: T.D. Jakes and the gospel of the almighty dollar is another great study that dives in depth on the issue. By no means are the resources exhaustive, but they are a couple to consider that may be a blessing.

But as one who has done extensive work with those in the Projects (and growing up there, to a degree), it's a different world. And there are many aspects of the Prosperity Theology I've often seen growing up that have been detrimental to those on the block--even though other aspects may be good as well. For on the positive side, prosperity-teaching churches are some of the most racially diverse congregations today, and they spearhead a lot of charitable endeavors....the very thing that many within economically impoverished conditions have been needing aid for the Longest time--and often were ignored, which is why there was in many ways a shift to focus upon the issue so much.

amen, pretty much what I have been trying to say....bravo!

Shalom, Sir...

razzelflabben · Feb 12, 2010

Easy G (G²);54131573 said:
Easy G (G²);54131566 said:

Again, its an issue of progression of time.........and the fact of build-up---no different than what happens today when one starts out small/cannot afford to miss work because they're trying to make it...but they build up in time to where they can/their offspring can out do them----with it being possible for them to do more things than their predecessors.

Click to expand...

you just told me that our culture today was nothing like the culture then, now your telling me that it is the same, how can it be both?....you also just told me that the oldest son cared for all the other members of the family, now your saying that the children can make more than their parents....which is it? When you change the answers at will, it's hard to keep up....

As far as finances, seems logical/reasonable that while He was a carpenter, prior to His ministry, that He did pretty good - needs were met, nobody starving, a standard middle class carpenter. But He was not "filthy rich" in the financial department regarding how riches were measured in that time period.

Click to expand...

I wish there was a smilie that shrugged it's shoulders as if to say, yeah, so what?

And He was not "dirt poor" either. Even when He left the profession and began ministry (which did not happen for at least 18 years), His needs were met. And the disciples needs were met, too. I believe much of what Jesus was trying to teach His first disciples was how to be totally dependant on God without relying on their own skills or trades (even though they can come in handy), but rather to rely on faith in God. That's not to say that they didn't work from time to time, but that God did provide, one way or another. With Jesus, there will always be provision. There is the reality, of course, that many often say things akin to how those truly following Christ would NEVER be rich---even though they still seek to live at a prosperous level of income/life....and by nature, doing things that show they wish to be prosperous. The fact of Christ multiplying resources on MULTIPLE occasions is something I'd think would be demonstration that He was able to take care of buisness...( Matthew 15:28-30/ Matthew 15 /Mark 8:1-3 / Mark 8 /Matthew 14:12-14 Matthew 14 /Mark 6:29-31 / Mark 6 /Luke 9:9-11 / Luke 9 /John 6:1-3/ John 6 , etc). It was never the case that Jesus ever had to deal with or even face STARVATION & BEGGING FOR FOOD......and even the Devil noted that He could feed Himself at ANY time He so desired due to His Provision via the Father/Holy Spirit and Being God...as seen in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, Matthew 4:2-4 Matthew 4

Click to expand...

which is what I said, there is a middle ground. Hint: even those that live in poverty, seldom are "dirt poor"...

With multiplication of resources, I'm always amazed seeing the issue of quality verses quanity---for when Jesus did the miracle at the wedding at Cana in John 2 , indeed, it was not just a matter of wine being multiplied since that would've been nothing special...just as resources multiplied in/of themselves are not special if not done with quality/reliability. Jesus made the BEST WINE for the event...and likewise, it's always amazing to see Him multiply his BEST for His Glory

But again....not suprising...as that's the essence of Biblical Prosperity. Jesus's ministry had all it needed and even weeks of operating cash. When taxes were due, He sent Peter fishing - not the nets of fish to sell, but a solitary fish. When they were faced with sending people off hungry, they blessed a handful of fish and loaves and fed thousands of people. THAT is prosperity,

If you would cease assuming that others are not for such, then perhaps there'd not be a problem.

Click to expand...

????????????????????????????????

For the reality is that, if reading all of what I've said, that "rich" and "poor" can have varying levels...and that it doesn't mean that Jesus was "living luxurious" when one says that he was "rich"---no more than it'd be for me living in middle class/saying "I'm not RICH!!" despite how I have a car, running water, T.V. and many other things others around the world would consider "high living". And many times, appearances can be deceiving

Again, it's you...and ONLY you..that is reading extremes into the issue.

Click to expand...

so what do you think rich is? What do you think prosperity is?

18 Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink, and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given himfor this is his lot. 19 Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his workthis is a gift of God. 20 He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart Ecclesiastes 5:18-20 Ecclesiastes 5

Click to expand...

hummmm....more passage that show that wealth is not at our own hands but at God's....sounds familiar, I wonder who it was that first brought that up....

(in Context)
One reading the life of Solomon (who was exceptionally rich/wealthy) and seeing his perspective in Ecclesiastes gives a more complete view to the issue of prosperity, IMHO, when it comes to the way many in WOF use it (i.e. "LIVE LIKE A KING'S KID!!! GOD WANTS YOU RICH ALL THE TIME!!!"): Ecclesiastes 1Ecclesiastes 2 , Ecclesiastes 3, Ecclesiastes 4 , Ecclesiastes 5:10-17, Ecclesiastes 5, Ecclesiastes 6, Ecclesiastes 7 , Ecclesiastes 8 , Ecclesiastes 9 , Ecclesiastes 11, & Ecclesiastes 12

Others are found within I Timothy 6 when it comes to rich believers and their responsibilities. Though even on that, it's odd seeing what we often set up as the indicators for whether or not a person's rich. If they have "bling" and much accessories, then they're rich. But funny seeing that many people who're truly rich we probably would never suspect or know about unless they told us. One kat I know of was apparently a Custodian....the man didn't look like much/seemed to be lower-class, and in his apartment complex, the landlord would always bully him/despise him due to his social status. Ironically, however, the Custodian was actually richer than the landlord due to the IMMENSE revenue he recieved from doing the job no one else would do with cleaning waste/garbage.....and he apparently collaborated with other Custodians to form a Union/Go on strike. People were helping to fund the Custodian/benefits were coming in unusual ways.....and all of it would've never been noticed due to how the custodian chose to LIVE ON FAR LESS than his financial means warranted.....

Click to expand...

which goes back to what I said way way long ago, that according to the bible, the rich man is the one whose daily needs are met.

What people on the thread (as well as myself) are responding to is primarily the thought others try to say when making it out as if Jesus was a pauper and not for Biblical Prosperity as taught in much of WOF

Click to expand...

So why not deal with me and what I have said rather than try to paint my comments as someone elses? Personally, I hold to something in between and that should be apparent from my posts...yet you label me and argue my points as if I fit in the extremes, why? Why not deal with what I am saying and believing, not what you want me to be arguing?

At times, what others often say seems to be in line with what's taught in Asectism theology---which is unfortunate ....as this is the image IMMEDIATELY coming to mind regarding how many see the Lord:

To be clear, the concept of "POOR Jesus" is not just a WOF issue---as I know of other circles that hold to the same. It's very prevelant in the Emerging/Emergent Church camp when it comes to working with the impoverished and the mentality that CHrist went against our common views we have of Him today. Don't know if I have the right book in mind, but I believe in "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell there was the view placed forth that the robes CHrist will come back in will be dirty like the homeless ones He had growing up rather than pure/spotless and looking nice
__________________

Click to expand...

wish I had that shrugging shoulder smilie again....don't know how this applies to anything I have said....

razzelflabben · Feb 12, 2010

Easy G (G²);54131948 said:
No one discussed you not understanding the passing down of wealth. What was discussed, however, as the issue of provision when taking leaves of abscenses for extended trips (as the disciples did for a season) and how they had buisnesses that continued to make money for their loved ones while they were away.

hum???? what do you think I said???? This is what confuses me, you act as if you have no idea what I said...

I also understand the point of having additional ways of making income---which I've never disagreed with......Never mind, Bruh...

Cool....
At the end of the day, it comes down to it being possible that in both situations---whether a house in your own name or whether it's in the name of another who gives it to you to live in as a blessing---the disciples were not wandering around the streets homeless or destitute.

I never suggested otherwise, which is why I'm confused, you seem to think I have said things I have not...

Though there's the reality of what was the most likely view on the matter...

on this we agree, and the most logical reality is that Jesus did not own the house...

That does not have any logical connection--as plenty of families with their OWN homes and yet having parents/elders unable to take care of themselves and who live with their children. Taking care of the elderly in their old age was always a BIG deal--and it was not the case that they HAD to be living in their own homes. Additionally, if the woman was sick/unable to take care of herself, then the reality of her living in her own home would be unlikely since there'd be an inability to do so. She would have to find another to take care of her. As the Word is not exhaustive on the issue or all the details, of course some things one can either speculate on/surmise or leave alone.

family home, just as I suggested...

If it was a family house, the door would always be open for family to come live there

exactly what I said....

Matthew 4:18-22 indeed makes clear that Andrew was a Fisherman like Peter. Though as he was not as involved as often due to following John, it would not have been the case that he was making as much as Peter consistently/having an equal share in the buisness. The text of scripture makes clear (additionally) that business was placed more so in the name of Peter--as in Luke 5:8-11 that the brothers, James and John, were partners of Peter rather than Andrew. Though both could have been fishermen, it was the reality that one had more influence financially than the other...just like one running a company with his brother and yet in time, more emphasis is given to the other due to that one being there faithfully--even though his brother may have skill as well.

not a clue what your point here is...

Even with the home situation, the name "Peter/Simon" comes first (before Andrew), which indicates prominence or order in roles. Though ultimately, We have no idea what the home life was like at home---as to whether or not it was a situation where Peter was the one who the home was in the name in and Andrew was not pulling his weight around...or whether it started good and yet in time, as Andrew followed John around extensively, that Peter grew in prominence.

or age, or other things like just the way they were referred to, as in always referring to someone in the same order, simply out of habit...iow's, your reading tooo much into the account and not putting enough possibles into your assumptions.

On the house situation, It seems more likely to surmise that thhe house simply a house that both Peter and Andrew lived in. Seeing how some families may not have always had the opportunity to have an inheritance (As the reality of husbands dying and leaving their wives/children as widows and orphans without coverage was a BIG deal back in the Bible), sometimes it was the case people had to work from scratch and be a "self-made" man. So the possibility of Peter having to work his butt off to get where he was----to the point where he was in good standing/equal partnership with wealthy James and John in their family buisiness---is just as valid.

?????? if he was "working his butt off" in the business, he would not have had time to be learning at Jesus feet, or ministering to those in need. You really need to be careful here about your assumptions. Peter was not just spending all his time working to get ahead, he was also learning from Jesus, kind of like someone today, starting their own business, of which would not be unlikely to work 80 hrs. a week and still go to school full time and as you point out, on top of that, he still was responsible for his family....so the question then becomes, how many hrs. did they have in their weeks back then, because either their weeks were longer than ours, or something had to give in the schedule and my bet is that it was work that "suffered".

No one argues against the possibility that they both shared responsibility---though that doesn't mean that one was not consistently in the position of making more than the other/being the primary one taking care of things...just as it is with roommates who grew up as brothers and like to help each other out---even though it's made clear that one has more to bring than another and more weight falls on him. And as often happens in families where one is having to deal more so with the weight of provision, they may be more slow to get in line with another doing "spiritual work". We often assume the disciples, on a side note, were great men of faith the moment they met Jesus for the first time. But they had to grow in their faith as do believers. In Mark 1:16-20, this is apparently not the only time Jesus called Peter (Simon), James and John to follow (see Luke 5:1-11 and John 1:35-42 for two other times...as in the other, Andrew had been following John for a good bit...and was convinced Jesus was the real deal, though when he told Peter, didn't fall in quickly). Even though in Luke 4 Jesus was invited to heal Peter's mother-in-law, it took time for Jesus's message and call to get through and for the disciples to consider following him.

another "I don't get your point" smilie should go here...

Not necessarily, provided the reality of relationship and that they mutually wanted to live together.
Was never thinking such..
But again, that's divorced from the rest of the text---namely, Mark 1:16-20 ad Matthew 4:18-22 on the reality of who Peter's partners were..........that they were already men from a SUCCESSFUL FAMILY Business that had done well/could afford others in it the opportunity to take extended leave of abscense as they did. For Peter was partners with James/John in Luke 5:8-11 and there were connections.
Again, you're not staying within the context of scripture. For if one's going to ask questions as you do about what Jesus knew, one must also deal with the texts of scripture FULLY on instances where he did not..and where certain things he only knew through the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, one's already making a Jump in asserting instances of Jesus knowing certain things (i.e. thoughts of men's hearts, donkey) and extending that to all other instances in the life of Christ. That's like saying
"Every Swan is a Bird...therefore, all birds are swans"

???? What I am saying is that we can't assume that Jesus didn't know where He would be staying...based on the totality of scripture, it is not logical that Jesus would not have known, He may have known or He may not have known, it's anyones guess, to try to make that into part of your argument, or even the basis for your argument is flawed logic.

And on the issue of knowing (as if knowing one instance means one will automatically know another), how did Peter "know" what Ananias and Sapphira did? Could not Jesus have the same revelation of the Holy Spirit without omniscience? There's the other issue of some things being intentionally blocked from knowledge even for Jesus, as Matthew 24:35-37 / Matthew 24 when it comes to the end/knowing the time of Gods Return...and of course, the issue with the woman who touched Jesus and he did not know it due to the crowd, as seen in Luke 8:44-46/ Luke 8

I need that smilie again...not a clue how this addresses what I said....

razzelflabben · Feb 12, 2010

Easy G (G²);54132023 said:
I was making a point to another that it's odd for people to say that Jesus had no trade or job (as did his father with being a Carpenter)---and when you responded on the issue in saying that he would not have been in the business of "making furniture" (as oppossed to loving people, that is when response was given to yourself on how it is not mutually exclusive for CHrist to have been in the business of making furniture and loving people...nor was it the case that Joseph was not considered the father of Christ/Jesus not acknowledging such in one way or another (as it relates to an earthly sense).

what I said is that Jesus considered God HIs father, I made no conclusions nor did I suggest that Jesus did not know the carpentry trade as would have been taught to HIm by Joseph...in fact, all the rest is what you read into my comment that Jesus considered God His father and even talked about being on HIS FATHER (God) business, not Joseph's....

And in the case of Peter/James and John, having others take care of it is what went down.
Matthew 4:21-23 Matthew 4

The Calling of the First Disciples

18As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 19"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 20At once they left their nets and followed him.

21Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them, 22and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.

let's take the text for what it says, without reading anything into it...what does it say....it says they left their tools and everything, even parents, to follow, so Simon and Andrew left their nets, I hope for their sakes they didn't live somewhere where people just pick up what is left behind....I wonder how long it would have laid unclaimed....as to James and John, they left their boat and father, I'm guessing that their dad took care of the boat for them...but they still left it behind....so the options are that 1. they lost it all, or 2. they used their cell phones to call their friends to cocme and gather their stuff up for them....

Jesus Heals the Sick

23Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
Mark 1:19-21 Mark 1

The Calling of the First Disciples

14After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

16As 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.

Again, as I have never said otherwise, then there seems to be no reason as to why you're arguing against the point----as its more than likely that because the business was in the hands of their well-off father, James and John (alongside Peter, who was their partner) could walk away and come back to work when their season of following Jesus extensively was done.

the only part of your argument I am arguing with is the certainty you seem to argue with....but hey, whatever...as to how well off they were, it still could have been a struggling business, in fact, there is nothing in the text that suggests that the business was well off, now that is not to say it wasn't large enough to have a boat and hire people, but they could have rented the boat, and the text does not indicate if the hired hands were about to be laid off....these are all questions that require us to read into the text.

And that's exactly what they did in John 21:1. Hence, never was it the case that their business fell apart--as you ORIGINALLY stated at one point when trying to argue the point that their following Jesus meant everything fell apart. As you said in no uncertain terms to me when I was addressing another:

Some Other Factors To Consider....

Again, that comment was in direct response to what I stated when making clear that the businesses the disciples ran were doing well/they had things in order for them to leave for awhile...and have something to go back to. How else was the comment to be taken----especially as it was dealing with an extensive post concerning the economic times/status of those in certain professions and what they could and could not have performed/gotten away with in the field?

maybe as an addition to what you said, not as a counter to....

I
How is it, then, that when it's discussed that their business did not fall apart necessarily, the argument switches as if you've been supportative/lending credibility for the idea that the business did not fall apart.....despite the fact that you've been coming against it consistently for a good bit now? And if you've always been for the idea of their business not falling apart, then why in the world are you arguing pointlessly over it?

???????????????? What I have said from the beginning is that if they were full time students of the Christ, their businesses could not have remained as profitable nor sustained their level of profitablity over the period of time in which they were absent.....now how does that equal anything you accuse me of?

Additionally, for anyone actually having to RUN a businness, when one has saved up enough for emergency or leaves of abscense, it's not that difficult to walk away for a time/have things in order. One would have to be outside of reality to think otherwise..especially for those who actually are leaders in the realm of business and make clear that in times of crisis, find ways to make your money work for ya.

okay, let's go back to something you said earlier....you said that Mary and Joseph would have been poor because of a "temporary lay off" but the disciples would not have been poor after their extended "lay off"s because.....? Why the double standard? What is the difference, both were business owners, both should have been prosperous businesses, both took leaves, Mary and Joseph, whom you claim were poor to a realatively short absence to the disciples....so why would Mary and Joseph have been poor and not the disciples? Show the logic as well...

As you do not know what my entire theology is (or have even acknowledged/shown you understand it), moot point. But Again, no one denies that the men changed...as they learned what it was to not rely solely on their trades/professions to see God do radical things on their behalf. They learned to seek the Lord in faith/His Kingdom and watch the Lord come through. And some of those lessons were always amazing... though they often fell into willfull disbelief...for in example, one need only to consider the myriad of occasions that Christ multiplied resources on behalf of His disciples and those following Him----and yet, when the same problem arose, it was always astounding seeing how the same mentality of disbelief/asking "How is it possible to feed all of these people, Lord??!!"in Matthew 16/Matthew 16:2 since even after the feeding of many, CHRIST DID IT AGAIN with 4,000 and yet here they doubted whether He could feed another large group too (Matthew 15:4 Matthew 15:32-39, Mark 8:1-10/Mark 8:26 )Mark 6 /Mark 6:51-53
---and on other instances, things Christ said were more than clear and He was more than open about people being "dull" on the matter/slow to believe, Matthew 15:15-17/ Matthew 15 Mark 7:18/Mark 7 Matthew 16:10-12 / Matthew 16 /Mark 8:13-15 / Mark 8 /John 3:9-11 John 3/John 4:47-49/ John 4 /Matthew 17:16-18 / Matthew 17 /Luke 9:40-42 / Luke 9

And after growing up as a statistic/being considered one who'd not make it because of my background, what Jesus taught was more than real/applicable. For I've seen the same things in my life when it comes to trusting the Lord. So to claim one being "short-sighted" seems misplaced (to say the least)

again, I need that smilie that says, "I dont' have a clue what your point is"...

What is of note, however, is your proving from scripture that they never went back to their trades/jobs after Christ and still served him

now why should I prove this even though I never suggested that they didn't? I mean, why should I defend someone elses claim?

---as that's assumption on your part.

no, it isn't even close to my assumption, so why should I show it in scripture? makes no sense why you would ask me to defend something I didn't say...

And again, the issue is having a trade/how that impacts discipleship. If you wish to do arguments via simplification to something no one has said, that's your choice.

Where is that confused smilie....I really need it....I don't have a clue what you are trying to get at....

razzelflabben · Feb 12, 2010

Easy G (G²);54132125 said:
But it is not a far-fetched idea to say that just because the disciples followed Jesus for a season/left everything behind doesn't mean they had nothing to go back to once he was gone (as in working a job/trade to pay the bills and aid in the growth of the church)--or that they never did so.

I never suggested otherwise....where are you getting the idea I did? It seems your writing a lot of words to argue something that has never been argued....and they say I am wordy....oiy

snip for space.

well the point of this long paragraph was never questioned.

When you do so first on your part/pay attention rather than reading into what I said or not dealing with it. As it is, it's inconsistent on your part since the entire comment you just quoted me on dealt DIRECTLY with the issue of what you quoted me on further/said you had issue with---which the idea (that you consider a "double-standard") that the circumstances of Mary/Joseph (when he had to take time off from work) are not necessarily the same as those of Jesus when he took time off from workIts only a double-standard when you're not paying attnetion to what was said CLEARLY...

which would be why I have been asking you about what appears to be a double standard, but hey on this board, it seems that I am the only one who asks for clarity when something doesn't seem right.

as you're assuming that the same stance Joseph had was what all others in all other trades had.

????? the same stance, what is that suppose to mean?

That's no more logical than saying all of the circumstances for every businessman are the same....even though there are plenty who have crisis happen when they start out and others having crisis occur in times when they are good. One's level of finance can indeed differ...

so if I get this right, show in scripture where Joseph was a less profitable carpenter than Jesus was, much less less profitable in business than all the disciples at their businesses....I would love to see the scripture that tells us that....

Based on what Joseph and Mary were able to do and why it was significant for them to recieve the gifts they did--as well as scripture indicating what they could afford AT THE TIME (Luke 2, Matthew 1), there's no indication they were well off at the moment

but that goes back to speculation about the "wealth" of Jesus and the disciples....not about the health of a business...there is nothing in scripture that would suggest that Mary and Joseph were less in business that Jesus and the disciples, that is, if we read the scriptures for what they say, not for what we think we want it to say...

Again, context.
John 1

Jesus' First Disciples

35The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!" 37When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?"
They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"
39"Come," he replied, "and you will see."

So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

40Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). 42And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter[j]).

In John 1, the disciples who went to Jesus were not "buddy buddy"---and there is no record of them being on intimate terms with him.

so you really think in a city of that size, that the disciples would not have known where the carpenter lived? Okay then...

Intimacy happen as they came after him to FOLLOW him and be discipled...

notice they were already calling Him teacher, two possibles, they were 1. already intimate enough to know where He lived, or 2. Jesus had already been away from the carpentry business long enough to establish Himself as a teacher, or let's add another 3. a combination of the two.

and all else is speculation. When they came to Jesus to ask where he was staying, that was an INITIAL encounter that would later give basis for their adventures later on when the other details (i.e. at parties, as in John 2 with the wedding in Cana, traveling, etc).

You're close to the Rabbi you study under....not every Rabbi.

Bruh

There are plenty of close friends who did not know where I lived for a very long time---as we didn't go over to houses for a good bit often. As we got closer, then information on where we lived was shared and we got to know each other very well. And the same thing with others. But outside of that, you're again going off the assumption that the disciples were ALREADY close when they decided to follow Jesus on John's orders. That's nowhere in the text.

see above...you are reading into the passage what is not there....your assumptions are not based on anything but your own beliefs, which is the point....

THey may respect him, they may admire him...but nowhere was it the case they were FRIENDS/CLOSE to him. That's why they later chose to follow Him and later found out where he lived/was. And of course, if he moved, those who WERE close to him would have known of it. Those who followed him/chose to study his life (as the disciples did later) would have eventually known about where he was going next---as he was very mobile. But there's no basis in the text to assume that because the disciples chose to follow him meant that they were already "close" to him and knew who he was. As the Messiah and already knowing how others would come to follow him on a "thrill seeker basis", of course its established that he did not want all to often know where he was at-----and some places he went, he wanted to keep his prescence secret, as seen in Mark 7:23-25 Mark 7. Even his own brothers did not understand why he often chose to remain "underground", as seen in

so your assuming that when Jesus called the disciples, it was the first encounter they had with HIM? Wow, so they just left everything without a clue what or who they were leaving it all for?

As to the other part, if His presence was to be a secret, it would seem unlikely that He owned the house, which was the comment I made that started this whole thing.

Jesus, again, was very much an "underground" kat many times...
Focus please, as the issue was never about Jesus planning on keeping his home/where he was at a secret from those FOLLOWING him. There is privacy to consider. But as the disciples came to FOLLOW Christ, of course he revealed himself to them and they got INTIMATE with him over the night. Plenty of people, however, who came to Jesus and yet they were faking sincerity---with him often TURNING THEM AWAY from him and not obliging their requests. So again, don't argue against what I never said. I said that there's no reason to assume that all in the town knew where Jesus lived and that, therefore, no need to assume the disciples knew either....until they asked to know Jesus/He knew where they stood.
Again, if you're going to be paranoid on the issue, that's your choice.

so what I can't fathom is how an entire city, could be so blind as to not know where the greatest carpenter of the day lived? How is that possible? I mean, you really want us to believe that the greatest of carpenters was not well enough known to know where He lived even though He was well known and a very famous carpenter. IN addition, you want me to believe that this well known carpenter who no one knew but was so rich from His fame, bought houses all over the place so that He could hid, but didn't think anything about keeping the houses a secret while the people close to His heart, the poor, suffered and lived on the streets? Okay then....

As it is, its hypocritical since the first post you wrote to me had mockery in it/blasting it from the jump.
Again, when you can show from the context (as well as the culture) that carpenters could not have owned homes, then you have a case.

who said carpenters couldn't own homes? Where are you getting this stuff?

As it is, it seems more than clear you just don't want to believe could have owned a home. And again, you're assumption hinders you from seeing such since you assumed from the jump that the disciples in John 1 were close to him. Of course, as they got close to him later, they could have easily found out.

see above, I already addressed all this nonsense you attribute to me but is not mine...

Even with the issue of renting, as I never was against that theory since the issue of Biblical Prosperity is being able to take care of yourself/have provision, Jesus could have easily had it be the case where he rented a home and had finance to do that. As he hated getting crowds many times and would often retreat from them, it is more than reasonable to surmise that privacy was also a big deal...hence, not telling all where you live.

well since I freely admitted He could have rented, I'm not sure what your point here is, but since you brought up the issue of privacy, let's look into that...let's say that this guy, who is famous and always drawing crowds, comes to you and rents a home...how likely are you to brag about it...if let's say, President Obama rented your house, and you like all businessmen want to maximize your profits, why would you keep it a secret that He was staying there? What if He lived next door, what would stop you from building your reputation and business by boasting of His living right next door. Most people boast of much less...so how then or better yet how likely is it that He remained "hidden" without the help of friends who put Him above their own interests?

And again, culture/context...and for that matter, none of what you said negates the possibility.
Judging by the comments, I do question whether or not you've seriously ever lived on the streets or in impoverished situations with people who have had the same (i.e. extended families or families with many siblings in one roof/some doing nothing but taking up space)...as it happens often, Bruh

how was that related to anything said? I really need a confused smilie.....

And for that matter, it does demonstrate a lack of comprehension on the issue if not understanding/factoring in that all in the family may not be at the LEVEL or ability to make income necessary to provide--just as in other households where only one or 2 out of 12 are old enough to have a job while the rest are in highschool.

not even close to what I was talking about....who do you think you are responding to? This isn't even close to what I was saying...

Had you actually lived in the projects, you'd know that. Regardless If you're going to mock, at least do so knowing the facts first.
.

you would be amazed at what I really know if you took the time to listen rather than assume what is not...but that doesn't happen very often on this board, so I'm not holding out hope....

Gxg (G²) · Feb 12, 2010

razzelflabben said:
Easy G (G²);54131573 said:

you just told me that our culture today was nothing like the culture then, .
now your telling me that it is the same, how can it be both?.

Click to expand...

Wrong, as I said our culture is nothing like it in ALL aspects. Never was it said that all things in the culture then had nothing in common with things today---hence, why it was said earlier that the disciples (several of them) were small businessmen and worked jobs as they do today. You've not been paying attention--and need to do better

...you also just told me that the oldest son cared for all the other members of the family, now your saying that the children can make more than their parents....which is it?
When you change the answers at will, it's hard to keep up.

Click to expand...

Again, need to pay attention better...as the son being able to make more than the parents when he goes into the trade/takes over (As Joseph died by them) does not go counter to saying that the oldest son cared for all the other members

... I wish there was a smilie that shrugged it's shoulders as if to say, yeah, so what?

Click to expand...

Mockers generally like to do that---though not surprising (Proverbs 14:6)

which is what I said, there is a middle ground. Hint: even those that live in poverty, seldom are "dirt poor"... ????????????????????????????????

Click to expand...

And again, "dirt poor" is not a minority---basic fact in Human Services, Bruh.

so what do you think rich is? What do you think prosperity is?

Click to expand...

Again, wrote about it before---but if you're not going to address respectfully what I already wrote, don't waste my time.

hummmm....more passage that show that wealth is not at our own hands but at God's.

Click to expand...

Wrong, as context also involved Solomon working dilligently and God blessing the work he did-----if reading through I Kings. Of course it was never argued that all wealth was NOT from the Lord's Blessing..

...sounds familiar, I wonder who it was that first brought that up.... which goes back to what I said way way long ago, that according to the bible, the rich man is the one whose daily needs are met.

Click to expand...

And who said otherwise...and moreover, as you were not the first to bring it up, why are you acting as if you did with sarcasm? Really..

So why not deal with me and what I have said

Click to expand...

Sorry--but from the jump, you've neither dealt accurately with what I've said---or, for that matter, the many others who have been discussing on this thread. Do better please

Personally, I hold to something in between and that should be apparent from my posts.
..yet you label me and argue my points as if I fit in the extremes, why?

Click to expand...

No one said otherwise--and again, it is ONLY YOU reading "extremes" into my posts.

Why not deal with what I am saying and believing, not what you want me to be arguing? wish I had that shrugging shoulder smilie again....don't know how this applies to anything I have said...

Click to expand...

Again, when you pay better attention to what is being said/sit down for a bit, come back for discussion

razzelflabben · Feb 12, 2010

Easy G (G²);54132634 said:
Luke 4:24
"I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown

If you're going to try to do a "Strongs" action of saying "Well, it has multiple meanings so it must mean the same meaning I WANT to choose...", please go back and show where it was the case that in ALL cases "home" was indicative of country/fatherland. For its established that "hometown" means "native land/country"--though what needs to be seen is that every instance of "home" means "native country", especially when dealing with CONTEXT OF houses as in places on lives rather than towns of residence. By your logic, every instance in the Word where one went to his own "home" one can say/infer that they went back to their own country--yet for the instances where context shows they were already OUT of their country, home cannot ALWAYS mean "native land"

so now showing possibles that testify to what i'm saying is proof texting...okay them...

Again, there was a context to the discussion--and my comments were clearly in regards to how when the text says "Jesus entered the house" or "went home" that it does not always mean in the same sense that we say today of our culture...as the Jewish writers did not always have the same dynamics. If they said "Jesus entered the house", it is without basis to say "Well, perhaps it meant that he went to his home country like we do today"....and the context is more than clear that "home" in not talking about one's native country---as if so many came to the native country of Jesus that there was no room in the borders of that nation to house them all. As the text says:

and you challenged me to show that "going home" could mean either in scripture, of which I did, and you, instead of accepting it, made more accusations that are not true about my character, which as I understand it is flaming, but I've been wrong before...

Luke 10:37-39 /

Regarding the context of "hometown", it was already clear that Jesus was not in his HOMETOWN at the time he was in Capernum---as he went there later and got rejected, as seen in Mark 6:1-3

that wasn't the point of the post and passage, so I'm not sure what your point here is....

Additionally, as scripture is clear, the disciples already had homes (not hometowns) to go to
John 20:10
[ Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene ] Then the disciples went back to their homes,
John 20:9-11

But for the sake of technicality, show in the instances I brought up concerning Jesus's HOME (not HOMETOWN), what each meant. For that was the context---that when saying "Then Jesus went home" or "Jesus came out of the HOUSE" (within the larger context of it already stating he went to his hometown), that it means "native country"..especially seeing how often he traveled

???? I don't have a clue, I said that home/house here could mean a home He owned, a home He rented, or a home of a family member in which He was always welcomed....you asked me to prove in scripture how home could mean something other than a home owned by that individual and that is what I did, now your talking about context and something else of which I don't have a clue....

Yes, I have lived the life of the poor. Biological father was homeless for some time...and my Mother (who's Black Hispanic) had me out of wedlock and tried to raise me as a single-mother trying to make it through Medical School. Had many times where God did the miraculous, though many times where the Supernatural came only after we had done what he had instructed to do in the Natural (i.e working a job, paying the bills, sowing/reaping, etc). Rose up in the levels of class/social status and benefited greatly when growing up as we learned about many of the principles we learned in the Faith Movement/Biblical Prosperity, but never forgot where we came from---and never forgot the realities of being impoverished, especially seeing how that was a really big deal among minoritiy communities. It's why I chose to become a Human Services Professional......and why I've done work with ministries who do work among the poor.

cool....

Did my Senior Internship at an organization aiding those on the streets and working in the Children's Church department with impoverished children at the organization called-City of Refuge-Bringing Hope to Those Who Live on the Margin. For there, I worked under a man by the name of Pendelton Brown---who has done work with other Well Known WOF Advocates such as Jentzeen Franklin and other ministries outside of the camp......and during my work with him at something known as "Kids Mix"---we'd go into the projects and pick up the children to work with them personally in games/activities for Christ.

very cool...

And on the class, indeed, it was one of my favorites.

If God called him to do that, then by all means...though the same could work he if chose to not give it all away to the poor--rather using his home as a "halfway house" to provide shelter for the destitute or living in his home while teaching others how to live prosperous/survive just as many today do. In the field of Social Work, the same has happened with one of the founders of the movement, known as Jane Addams and her Hull Houseswhich involved the rich voluntarily going into POOR communities/buying property to create homes that the poor could live in. It was an experimental model of reform trying solutions to see what would work and committed to full- and part-time residents to keep in touch with the neighborhoods real needs, Jane Addams built Hull-House into an institution. For more info, Jane Addams biography & Jane Addams College of Social Work & Jane Addams Hull House Association. Another great example of such would be a ministry I'm connected with known as Urban Concern-by a mnistry known as Xenos, a Christian inner-city charity recognized by President George H. Bush in his Thousand Points of Lights awards. The ministry of Xenos is a non-denominational/cell-church based (home church) fellowship which has done extensive work for those in the inner city-and together with Columbus city government and business leaders, Xenos has been continually expanding their work with the inner city in amazing ways. In 2007, Xenos constructed a Christian school and community center in the inner cityand now also provides two free clinics for the underprivileged in the Columbus area. For more info, go to Xenos Annual Reports & Xenos Free Clinics. There are other examples today of organizations/churches having the same kind of impact.as its one of the reasons why faith-based initiatives have been receiving funding from the government in the work they do-as well as para-church ministries and non-profit organizations when it comes to things such as domestic abuse shelters, food pantries, medical-clinics in the inner-city and many other things. In example, Dave Wilkerson wrote a book not too long ago known as Cross and Switchbladedetailing his work in the Inner City with those who were destituteand how the Lord worked mightily to aid them powerfully. From there, he was able to make Teen Challenge ( ) , which is an evangelical Christian recovery program and a network of Christian social / evangelizing work centers aiding those whore drug addicts, alcoholics, gang members, prostitutes and people with life-controlling problems. Another similar to it is one I've enjoyed seeing---known as "HomeBoy Industries", which does work with the impoverished and gangs in LA.

awesome...you do know however, that all the poor are not centered in the projects, right?

But It all comes down to what God calls others to do individually.....

In example, one cannot help but think on how many times Jesus asked others to come & follow Him---with words for those who either made excuses or were slow to answer the call ( Luke 9:56-58 / / John 12:25-27 )----and yet, there were other times when others could have made it "formula"/felt that they needed to go follow Jesus wherever He went......with the Lord actually turning people away from Him and telling them to remain where they were at.

Where all called to leave everything behind and travel with Jesus as with the disciples when they gave up their livelihoods to do missionary work? Were all called to follow Him wherever He went when he traveled?

When reading scripture, it's interesting to see how some actually were turned down by Christ/told to simply chill where they were at. Actually occurred in Mark 5:17-19 with the demon possessed man who begged Jesus to let him follow the Lord wherever he went as with others whom received the call/opportunity---but Jesus told him to stay in his hometown and simply be a light for him there. Some, after Jesus healed them, chose to follow him wherever he went (Mark 10:51-52 / ). The same dynamics occurred with the woman who anointed Jesus with her expensive perfume....for the disciples had already witnessed Jesus calling others to give up their riches for Him as with the Rich Young Ruler..and they understood how others could not serve both God and Materialism. Yet, the woman at his feet was rebuked sharply by them for what they viewed as a "waste" ( John 12:1-3 /Mark 14:2-4 // / Matthew 26:6-8/ )---thinking it could be used for other endeavors that were "godly" like helping the poor. Of course giving to the poor is a necessity/sign of love for the Lord---but what they were missing was the reality of INTIMACY and walking in step with Him, as there were times where others would not be called upon to give to the poor as with others.

again, amen...

Is it not possible that there are things in Life which are matters of obeying the Lord because He asked us to do something specific (As with the rich young ruler being asked to give up riches as a test of obediance) to show love for Him while there can be others where nothing has been asked at all by the Lord as with others & yet we're still given opportunity to do--with it having no bearing on how the Lord views us? __________________

Personally I think scripture tells us that God asks something from all of us, the question is what is He asking....to one He may ask to come, to another stay, but each have been asked to obey....

Gxg (G²) · Feb 12, 2010

razzelflabben said:
hum???? what do you think I said???? This is what confuses me, you act as if you have no idea what I said... I never suggested otherwise, which is why I'm confused, you seem to think I have said things I have not...

.

Again, moving on (as we have a failure to pay attention/remember on your account what was said but acting as if what others respond to is nowhere what you were saying).

on this we agree, and the most logical reality is that Jesus did not own the house...

Wrong--and again, most scholars do not support you on the matter anyhow..let alone, Jewish culture/dynamics. But believe as you'd like.

family home, just as I suggested...

Wrong--as you suggested the home was not belonging to Peter. Do not switch mid-way in convo

exactly what I said.... not a clue what your point here is

As you're not paying attention well, no surprise you don't have a clue or are unable to compute.

... or age, or other things like just the way they were referred to, as in always referring to someone in the same order, simply out of habit...iow's, your reading tooo much into the account and not putting enough possibles into your assumptions.

As it is, seeing that you've not dealt with the text or shown culturally how it was otherwise, you need to actually show what went down "possibly" rather than ignore in favor for whatever supports you.

?????? if he was "working his butt off" in the business, he would not have had time to be learning at Jesus feet, or ministering to those in need.
You really need to be careful here about your assumptions.
Peter was not just spending all his time working to get ahead, he was also learning from Jesus, kind of like someone today, starting their own business, of which would not be unlikely to work 80 hrs. a week and still go to school full time and as you point out, on top of that, he still was responsible for his family....so the question then becomes, how many hrs. did they have in their weeks back then, because either their weeks were longer than ours, or something had to give in the schedule and my bet is that it was work that "suffered"

Again, sit down...and think...as you're looking to when Peter was following Christ later/aiding others. I'm talking in no uncertain terms about before he began anything in ministry years earlier as it relates to his beginning business. As much as you discuss being careful on assumptions, you've been quick throughout this discussion/thread to read in your own and excuse yourself on it-----most of it being either strawmen or arguments where you make someone's argument look ridiculious and then fight against that.

In the environment that Peter and the others lived, you would have to be working hard. Especially seeing what the economics of the time were like. And being fishermen was no easy job. And when he met Jesus, he had to have many of his views changed. Already was it the case that he did not immediately follow Jesus when he called the first couple of times because each time he was WORKING HARD. And it's cool to see how the very nature of Christ was challenge the views of those who knew about their trades/crafts. For in Luke 5/Luke 5:1, Jesus is teaching the crowds while Peter is working. And Jesus challenges Him to do things differently than before. Luke 5 makes clear how much of a surprise it was for Simon Peter and James and John when Jesus told them to put out to deep water....for though Jesus was a working man the fact remains that He was a carpenter rather than a fisherman...while in contrast, his disciples were professionals whose families had drawn fish from the lake for generations. For Jesus to have given advice that increased the fruit of their labors, Proverbs 3:12, must have been amazing....to see that Jesus would know more about catching fish than he did. And from THAT point on, Peter learned more about trusting Jesus for supernatural provision

. another "I don't get your point" smilie should go here... ????

What I am saying is that we can't assume that Jesus didn't know where He would be staying.
..based on the totality of scripture, it is not logical that Jesus would not have known, He may have known or He may not have known,

Again, as scripture is full of MULTIPLE accounts of him only doing things via the Holy Spirit/Revelation from God as opposed to Divine Omniscience, its a moot point.

it's anyones guess, to try to make that into part of your argument, or even the basis for your argument is flawed logic. I need that smilie again...not a clue how this addresses what I said...

And again, when you want to deal with scripture fully, then you may wish to come back. As it is, you already made up your mind what to believe before reading it and even if text says otherwise, you cannot see it.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 12, 2010

razzelflabben said:
what I said is that Jesus considered God HIs father, I made no conclusions nor did I suggest that Jesus did not know the carpentry trade as would have been taught to HIm by Joseph...in fact, all the rest is what you read into my comment that Jesus considered God His father and even talked about being on HIS FATHER (God) business, not Joseph's....
.

And again, what you said does not deal with the text---as Jesus being about his Father's business has nothing to do with the text making clear he was also in the business of being a CARPENTER/Glorifying God through that---as His Father's Business had nothing to do with being seperate from his trade. That's assumption.

let's take the text for what it says, without reading anything into it.

When you actually deal with the cultural dynamics of the day, as that's part of textual criticism. Understanding the historical and cultural basis...and with the text, understanding what it took for a man to own/have hired servants in a Galiean Fishing business

.

.what does it say....it says they left their tools and everything, even parents, to follow, so Simon and Andrew left their nets, I hope for their sakes they didn't live somewhere where people just pick up what is left behind....I wonder how long it would have laid unclaimed...

And again, no need to play with the text (as it's not exhaustive)---and, for that matter, it was already the case that if you're apart of a BUSINESS in Jewish times, then you'd have others to take care of your equipment. As they were following Jesus and (according to your logic) knew of other ways to provide for themselves, its nothing to trip over.

.as to James and John, they left their boat and father, I'm guessing that their dad took care of the boat for them...but they still left it behind....so the options are that 1. they lost it all, or 2. they used their cell phones to call their friends to cocme and gather their stuff up for them.

Again, deal logically with the text---as if they left it all behind with their father (and Jesus already came to them previous times), then there's no need assuming they lost it all---especially if their father was a big player in the business and there was already the possibility of them considering to follow Christ. It would have been covered.

???????????????? What I have said from the beginning is that if they were full time students of the Christ, their businesses could not have remained as profitable nor sustained their level of profitablity over the period of time in which they were absent.

And again, what has been stated is that one must assume their business was not profitable and one must avoid dealing with the text if not acknowledging that they could return to work in 3 days time/still make a living as before.

....now how does that equal anything you accuse me of? okay, let's go back to something you said earlier....you said that Mary and Joseph would have been poor because of a "temporary lay off" but the disciples would not have been poor after their extended "lay off"s because....

As said before, if the disciples were WELL-TO-DO and in differing states, then its lgoical. Why you seem to see that as a "double-standard" is silly

.? Why the double standard? What is the difference, both were business owners, both should have been prosperous businesses, both took leaves, Mary and Joseph, whom you claim were poor to a realatively short absence to the disciples..
..so why would Mary and Joseph have been poor and not the disciples?

But were BOTH from PROSPEROUS families/well-to-do fathers in business? This is a common sense issue, Bruh.....like assuming why people working minimum wage cannot afford to take off time from work with as much coverage as someone working a very well-paying job. If one just started/is living from pay-check to pay-check while another has a steady source of sustainable income, it's a different reality. And the text makes clear that Joseph and Mary were extremely poor at one point. That cannot be avoided. It does not say, however, the same for the disciples.

Show the logic as well... again, I need that smilie that says, "I dont' have a clue what your point is"... now why should I prove this even though I never suggested that they didn't?
I mean, why should I defend someone elses claim? no, it isn't even close to my assumption, so why should I show it in scripture? makes no sense why you would ask me to defend something I didn't say...Where is that confused smilie....I really need it....I don't have a clue what you are trying to get at...

Again, if you want to have a reasonable discussion, cool. But if you wish to whine on it rather than deal with what's said, that is your problem.

As it is, no one is asking you to respond or address anything---and as it is, you came after others and switch along the way your argument.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 12, 2010

Easy G (G²);54138838 said:
Again, deal logically with the text---as if they left it all behind with their father (and Jesus already came to them previous times), then there's no need assuming they lost it all---especially if their father was a big player in the business and there was already the possibility of them considering to follow Christ. It would have been covered.

... the only part of your argument I am arguing with is the certainty you seem to argue with....but hey, whatever...as to how well off they were, it still could have been a struggling business, in fact, there is nothing in the text that suggests that the business was well off, now that is not to say it wasn't large enough to have a boat and hire people, but they could have rented the boat, and the text does not indicate if the hired hands were about to be laid off. .these are all questions that require us to read into the text. maybe as an addition to what you said, not as a counter to....

...
More than valid questions--and even more reason as to why Christ made a difference in their prosperity, as well as indication of what was already said that they were businessmen trying to make a living/having to be shrewd. There's one view out there on the issue that actually deals fully with where you're coming from

As said before:

The Status of Fishermen in the Ancient World

The New Testament tells us little directly about the two sets of fisher brothers, but we can learn more about them by looking at the fishing industry and the status of fishermen in the ancient world. You may be surprised.

One simple gauge of the importance of fish in the ancient world is the space given to the topic in the oldest encyclopaedia we possess, the Deipnosophistai (The Learned Banquet, or more wittily, The Gastronomers), compiled around 200 A.D. by Athenaeus of Naucratis in Egypt. In writing his encyclopaedia, Athenaeus drew on some 1,250 different authors and cited the titles of more than a thousand plays. In addition to numerous references to fish scattered throughout the work, book seven is entirely devoted to fish, 125 pages in the Loeb Classical Library edition. The contrast with meat could not be more striking: The Deipnosophistai has many references to meat but the largest block of material is only two and a half pages long.

These simple statistics betray an intense interest in fish, which confirms that "salted, dried and pickled fish was the staple food of the Greeks" and, it could be added, of the rest of the Mediterranean countries. "Bread and fish, with the addition of olive-oil and wine, formed in ancient times the most substantial parts of the diet of the people, rich and poor," writes one modern-day historian.

Significantly, the quantity of fresh fish available did not meet the demand. This inevitably pushed up the price.The Greek biographer Plutarch (c.50-120 A.D.) reports Cato the Censor's (234-149 BC) complaint that "a fish sells for more at Rome than a cow, and they sell a cask of smoked fish for a price that a hundred sheep plus one ox in the lead wouldn't bring, cut in pieces". According to Plutarch, the eminent Roman was not exaggerating!

Our sources complain bitterly at how expensive fresh fish was. Like moneylenders, fishmongers were considered murderous, wealthy thieves. The Roman emperor Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) tried to deal with the problem by regulating the sale of fish. He ordained: "Either those who catch the fish are to sell them all themselves, or the first people who purchase the catch from them. The resale of the same purchases by those who are third buyers adds to the prices".

The use of inspectors to control the price of fish was proposed as early as the fourth century B.C.

High prices often put fresh fish out of the reach of the poor. In fact, there was a presumption that if a poor person bought fresh fish, he was a thief. "The first poor man, who is also young (i.e. with the strength to commit a crime) who is seen buying eels from Micion (a character in a play) is seized and dragged to the prison." The poor could afford only dried and salted fish, which was the basic food of the lower classes in the cities, slaves, peasants and soldiers in the field.

Since fish was an essential element in the diet of the majority of the population, every government had to give thought to its regular supply. If private entrepreneurs failed to meet the demands of the market, the government farmed out fishing contracts in much the same way as it farmed out tax-collecting contracts. Professional fishermen had to guarantee a stipulated supply. Anything over and above that they could sell on their own. A document from Tebtunis, Egypt, dated 235 B.C., confirms that capitalistic enterprises played a significant role in such a lucrative market and that the owners earned much more than those who did the actual work.

The Gospels clearly convey the importance of fish in the diet of first-century A.D. Palestinian Jews. Tellingly, the Gospels never mention meat. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus asks, "What man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?" (Mt.7:9-10). The disciples who followed Jesus into the desert carried bread and fish (Mk.6:38; compare with Mk.8:7). The references, of course, are to dried or salted fish (Jn.6:9) which was broiled to make it palatable (Lk.24:42). In John 21:9, fresh fish was fried for breakfast by the lake.

The parable of the sorting of the catch in Matthew, "The kingdom of heaven is like a net which was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind; when it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into vessels but threw away the bad" (Mt.13:47-48), identifies the fishermen as Jewish because they follow the Law, distinguishing between clean fish (fish with scales and fins) and unclean fish ( Leviticus 11:9-12; Deuteronomy 14:9-10).

This was both good and bad for Jewish fishermen. On the one hand, they could not sell all their catch. But on the other hand, they had the advantage of selling to Jews in Jerusalem, even though they had to travel twice as far as the gentiles who controlled fishing on the Mediterranean coast. It was a two day journey from the coast to the Holy City and four days from Galilee.

These figures make it most improbable that fresh fish was ever available in Jerusalem. How could a scrupulous buyer of salted fish know exactly from what type of fish the slices were taken? All looked the same, especially when processed. The Mishnah encouraged Jews to mistrust the offerings of gentile fish sellers. All fish (sold by gentiles) can be presumed unclean… All manner of brine can be presumed to be unclean.

From this it was but a short step to protectionism, as a story of Paul's teacher illustrates. "A Gentile once brought fish to Rabban Gamaliel. He said, 'They are permitted but I have no wish to accept them from him.'" In other words, Jewish buyers should seek out Jewish suppliers, who were presumed to respect the Law. The advantage to the Jewish fishermen from Galilee is obvious, but they still had to face competition from their brethren who worked the Jordan River.

Simon Peter, Andrew and Philip
Against this background, let us return to the small group of fishermen who were Jesus first followers. Simon Peter, Andrew and another apostle, Philip, came from Bethsaida, on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee (Jn.1:44). For many years, the precise location of their hometown was disputed because the first-century A.D. Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Pliny locate it east of the Jordan River, in the lower Golan, while John 12:21 puts it west of the Jordan, in Galilee.

To complicate the problem, three sites east of the Jordan, et-Tell, el-Araj and Masudiyeh were long considered candidates for Bethsaida. Archaeological probes, however, showed that the last two sites were occupied only in the Byzantine period. Et-Tell, on the contrary, revealed an occupational history beginning in the third millennium B.C., with substantial remains from the first century B.C. and the first century A.D.
In Jesus' time, the territory north-east of the Sea of Galilee was ruled by Herod Philip (22 B.C. - 34 A.D.), who had inherited the area from his father, Herod the Great. Philip proved to be a popular ruler with a reputation for efficient and fair administration of justice. Towards the end of his life, he moved a great number of settlers into Bethsaida, which he raised to the rank of a city and renamed Julias.

The expanded population meant an increased demand for fish, and the prosperity of at least one fisher family in Bethsaida is attested by a spacious 1,750 square-foot house built around three sides of a courtyard. Inside, excavators found a variety of fishing implements, including net weights and a long, crooked needle. Also unearthed were 156 shards of imported Roman fineware, further evidence of wealth.

A Galilean upbringing had a profound influence on Simon Peter, Andrew and Philip. As Jews they would have learned enough Hebrew to read the Scriptures, but their mother tongue would have been Aramaic.

This makes it all the more curious that all three have good Greek names. Simon is derived from the Hebrew name Shimon, but it is Greek, and he is only rarely called Symeon (2 Peter 1:1), a transliteration closer to the Hebrew original. The nickname Peter is also Greek, and Andrew and Philip have no Semitic counterparts whatsoever. The implication is that their families were subject to strong Greek influence.

John 12:20-22 provides one indication that Simon Peter, Andrew and Philip also spoke Greek. In that passage, a group of Greeks asks Philip to introduce them to Jesus; they likely did so because they had heard Philip speaking Greek. As business people, fishermen needed to know Greek. In the first century, Greek was as much the international language as English is today. Greek was the language of trade and commerce in the whole of the eastern Mediterranean.

Bethsaida was but one of 13 ancient harbours that decorated the coast of the Sea of Galilee. It is unlikely that all had the specialised facilities that were necessary to preserve fish so that it could be transported any distance. Given the size of the lake, it would have made economic sense to have a central fish factory to process the catch of the many small harbours. That such was in fact the case is strongly suggested by the name of one harbour, Taricheae, "the Fish Factory". The name comes from the Greek verb taricheuo, "to preserve by artificial means." In practice, however, the cognates of this verb deal predominantly with fish - for example: tarichas, "a dealer in salt fish", taricheion, "pickle factory"; taricheutos, "salted, pickled'; tarichegos, "salt-fish hawker."

Thus, as the name indicates, Taricheae was the place where fish were salted. The process has not changed throughout history. Gutted fishare rubbed with coarse salt. According to R.J. Forbes, an expert in ancient technologies, "alternate layers of salt and fish are covered by dry matting. After standing from 3-5 days the pile is turned over to stand for a similar period. During this drying the body fluids drain away and salt solution penetrates the fish. After this drying they are firm and hard, though in some cases left to dry in the air somewhat longer".
To Aramaic speakers, Taricheae was known as Magdala, a name that evokes a different preservation process. The Aramaic name Magdala is known only from the adjective Magdalene, attached to the name of Mary, the disciple of Jesus who came from Magdala (Luke 8:2). Magdala is a Hellenized corruption of the Hebrew migdal, "tower". In Europe, where wood provided inexpensive fuel, a tower might have been used to smoke fish. The ancient Near East however, was wood-poor, so the tower was probably used to hang fish to dry in the sun and wind.

From Bethsaida to Capernaum

For the fishermen of Bethsaida, bringing fish to be processed at Taricheae created a serious problem. They were residents of the territory of Philip, but Taricheae was in the territory of Herod Antipas, Philip's half brother.

The two territories were divided by the Jordan River. Not surprisingly, the first village on Antipas's side of the border, Capernaum, had a resident toll collector (Mk.2:14) and a small garrison to enforce his rule (Mt.8:5). If tariffs were levied on goods coming across the border, then fishermen coming from outside Antipas's territory to have their fish processed at Taricheae no doubt paid a premium for the privilege.

This tax problem explains why Simon Peter and Andrew moved across the Jordan from Bethsaida to Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. Both Matthew and Luke describe Jesus miraculously curing Peter's mother-in-law in Capernaum (Mt.8:14-15; Lk.4:38-39). We might assume that Simon Peter had moved in with his wife's family for some personal reason, but Mark identifies the house as the home of both Simon Peter and Andrew: "[Jesus] entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John" (Mk.1:29).

We have a surprisingly good picture of the scale of Simon Peter and Andrew's fishing operation. They worked in partnership (Lk.5:7) with James and John, the sons of Zebedee (Lk.5:10), who had employees (Mk.1:20). They were free to start (Jn.21:1-3) and stop work(Lk.5:11) when it suited them. The impression that they were men of substance who controlled their own lives is confirmed by the quality of their house at Capernaum. Known as the House of Peter since the fourth century, it is larger than most of the other houses excavated in Capernaum.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 12, 2010

Easy G (G²);54138863 said:
...

We have a surprisingly good picture of the scale of Simon Peter and Andrew's fishing operation. They worked in partnership (Lk.5:7) with James and John, the sons of Zebedee (Lk.5:10), who had employees (Mk.1:20). They were free to start (Jn.21:1-3) and stop work(Lk.5:11) when it suited them. The impression that they were men of substance who controlled their own lives is confirmed by the quality of their house at Capernaum. Known as the House of Peter since the fourth century, it is larger than most of the other houses excavated in Capernaum.

Continued from before, on the article in full:

But that is not all. Although no evangelist was interested in providing his readers with a detailed picture of the families of Jesus' disciples or of their business practices, we can read between the lines. Given the average size of families at the time, it seems very likely that more of the family must have been involved in the fishing business on the Sea of Galilee than just Simon Peter and Andrew, and the family income would have been proportionally greater than that of two men working alone. Against this background of a relatively well-off family, it becomes possible to understand how Simon Peter and Andrew were financially able to drop their work and become, first, disciples of John the Baptist (John 1:42) and then disciples of Jesus.

How Reliable are the Gospel Accounts?

Let us return to the key question raised earlier: How reliable are the gospel accounts? Radical scepticism regarding their historical reliability began with form criticism, a way of studying the Gospels that developed in the years immediately after the First World War. Form criticism insisted that the reliability of the Gospel tradition was marred by the "creativity" of the believing community. No longer were the stories about Jesus regarded as authenticated by a chain of tradition; instead, the stories could not be attached to any specific individual and could not be verified. Reports were treated as rumours.

In 1962, however, the German scholar Heinz Schurmann pointed out that there was also a pre-Resurrection community of disciples who had known Jesus personally and who had preserved memories of what he had said and done. The post-Resurrection community, according to Schurmann, was simply the continuation of the group that Jesus had gathered around him. The dominant members of the pre-Resurrection community became the leaders of the much larger post-Resurrection community. These were the Galilean fishermen, and it is precisely at this point that what we have learned about them becomes significant.

When read carefully against the background of this ancient industry, the scattered references to Simon Peter and Andrew coalesce into a coherent picture. They came from a prosperous, assimilated Jewish middle-class family. Speaking both Aramaic and Greek, they were brought up to serve in an administrative as well as a practical role in an essential major industry. They knew how to plan and organize. As experienced businessmen, they were astute enough to move their home in order to take advantage of a tax break. Such shrewdness, one can be sure, also manifested itself in the way they handled competition from the many other Fishermen on the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. They were anything but "uneducated, common men."

Business and profit however, did not completely satisfy them. They looked for something more spiritual and were prepared to make sacrifices to attain it. Their background and training, ensured that they would carefully balance risk against gain. They were not gullible, and nothing in their personalities even hints at a tendency towards self-deception.

From what we know of their characters, it is clear that Simon Peter and Andrew would have functioned as a conservative control in the creative ferment of the post-Resurrection community. They had the authority of eyewitnesses, the sobriety to report accurately and the intelligence to discern between developments that Jesus would approve of and those that he would reject

That made clear, I do not see why its hard to believe that the disciples, when they left to follow Jesus, could not have afforded it---as they understood how it would affect them (since it would not be all of them there as before/logically less profit than with before) but in no way did they think following Jesus would bankrupt them/impoverish their families.

razzelflabben said:
I never suggested otherwise....where are you getting the idea I did? It seems your writing a lot of words to argue something that has never been argued.....

Again, if you're going to keep avoiding what you said direcetly when it suits you, so be it. But if others are arguing a point and you come against it, stop tripping when people think you're counter to what they've said...as you've often said you never said otherwise and yet when people make a point you agree with and you come against it, you get surprised. That needs to stop, Bruh

and they say I am wordy....oiy

Again, any child can mock. And hence, if you're going to do so, revelation about the level you're at.

why I have been asking you about what appears to be a double standard, but hey on this board, it seems that I am the only one who asks for clarity when something doesn't seem right. ?????

Again, being "dramatic" because (as if you're the only one asking for clarity---or as if you've somehow never ignored others asking for clarity from you)

the same stance, what is that suppose to mean?

Simple enough, Bruh.

so if I get this right, show in scripture where Joseph was a less profitable carpenter than Jesus was, much less less profitable in business than all the disciples at their businesses.

Again, if you're not going to deal wih the text---or show where it was not the case that Joseph/Mary were more poor than others, that's on you. It's more than apparent seeing what they could afford at the time. You do not see anywhere the same dynamics with the life of Christ--or the disciples.

... but that goes back to speculation about the "wealth" of Jesus and the disciples....not about the health of a business...there is nothing in scripture that would suggest that Mary and Joseph were less in business

Indeed---somehow, Mary and Joseph were unable to afford an inn and unable to give an offering above the level they could afford at the time (which was for poor individuals). But when it comes to Jesus and his lifestyle, it's the same??

No credible Jewish scholar would even agree

that Jesus and the disciples, that is, if we read the scriptures for what they say, not for what we think we want it to say

The only one reading scripture for what we "think we want it to say" is yourself---on MUTLIPLE occasions--yet for all others disagreeing with you, you're quick to say they're the only ones reading into it. That's a double-standard, Bruh

... so you really think in a city of that size, that the disciples would not have known where the carpenter lived?

How big was the city, Bruh? And for people that are underground, do you know where they live? Do you know where everyone in your own city lives, including every teacher?

Okay then... notice they were already calling Him teacher, two possibles, they were 1. already intimate enough to know where He lived, or 2. Jesus had already been away from the carpentry business long enough to establish Himself as a teacher, or let's add another

You could be both a RABBI and work a trade at the same time, Bruh. That was not a problem in Jewish culture---so that does not work. Additionally, as Jesus was not really considered by many in higher levels of education to be "credible", thats another factor to consider.

.you are reading into the passage what is not there

Again, asserting such does not show such. Show from the text---and for that matter, JEWISH Culture (as it relates to how Rabbis OPERATED) that the disciples should have INTIMATELY know who Jesus was.

For that is nowhere within Jewish culture that all RABBIS had to be intimate with the students of another Rabbi. Check out the Rabbinical writings, or ,f or that matter, go to the Messianic Jewish boards for more discussion. One can also look up the concept of being covered in the dust of your own Rabbi---and how RADICAL it was for Christ to even choose who he did. For a beginners guide (though not necessarily coming from a Jewish kat), go to Rob Bell - Covered in the Dust of Your Rabbi Part 1 and Rob Bell- Dust pt01

....your assumptions are not based on anything but your own beliefs, which is the point...

And again, asserting such does not deal with the text--or the cultural backgrounds in the Jewish time that you keep avoiding.

. so your assuming that when Jesus called the disciples, it was the first encounter they had with HIM? Wow, so they just left everything without a clue what or who they were leaving it all for?

Again, show credible scholars to think otherwise----as this is universally taken as the first time there was INTERACTION between Christ and the ones he called to follow him,.

And of course, if you've studied someone from a distance, then its not a matter of not having a clue what they're about. Additionally, as in the text there was a DIVINE recognition of him being the MESSIAH (whereas to others, it seemed foolish to think much of him or even consider following him)...

As to the other part, if His presence was to be a secret, it would seem unlikely that He owned the house, which was the comment I made that started this whole thing.

And again, seeing how big a city was, if one owned a house, then it would not be a problem keeping it a secret.unless, of course, others follow you home. Additionally, even if one knew where one lived, the other reality is that its not outside of the realm of possibility for the Lord to have kept certain things from the rememberance of others for the sake of their protection.

As it is, if he traveled (especially as it relates to how many carpenters traveled to other places for work) and often wanted to be alone/to Himself, it would not have been a problem for his whereabouts to be kept secret since no one would know exactly where he'd be at during a certain time. But if he owned a home (which I believe), then I do not think it would be impossible to keep it secret----especially as it relates to the Supernatural (which will be explained later).

Gxg (G²) · Feb 12, 2010

Originally Posted by razzelflabben
so what I can't fathom is how an entire city, could be so blind as to not know where the greatest carpenter of the day lived?

Unless you can show where all workers in their trade automatically gave out their home address when working. And of course, address how an entire city was already blind enough to not see Him for WHO He was. As the supernatural is involved. As it is, in his hometown, if all KNEW where he lived, then why is it scripture doesn't give indication of his being ganged upon by the whole community at his main address of 1300 Wallaby Lane? There was the reality that many times, certain things were hidden from others for his protection, as seen in John 7:29-31 John 7 /John 10:38-40 / John 10./Luke 18:33-35/ Luke 18 ...and more so seen Luke 4:29-31 Luke 4 when they tried to kill him for coming out/showing who He was and he was able to miraculously walk through their midst without being caught. They probably were STILL wondering where he was at--and could have shown up at his door step. But they could not. God's hand of Protection/Covering was on Him...

Again, it's not that hard to believe......

How is that possible? I mean, you really want us to believe that the greatest of carpenters was not well enough known to know where He lived even though He was well known and a very famous carpenter. IN

AGAIN, your question does not deal with the text---as it's more than obvious that there was an ignorance of the whereabouts of where Christ would stay. That cannot be avoided. And again, show within Jewish culture where it was a norm for all of one's customers to know where you stay

addition, you want me to believe that this well known carpenter who no one knew but was so rich from His fame, bought houses all over the place so that He could hid,

Again, if you understand the basic work of being a carpenter, that is not illogical. And one can be rich from their trade and yet still private/personal. No different than with today in our time with others who are contractors but who hate too much fame----and though well known, do not give out all of their personal whereabout info.

but didn't think anything about keeping the houses a secret while the people close to His heart, the poor, suffered and lived on the streets?

Again, you're doing arguments via emotion. One can guard privacy by being in differing places and not telling EVERYONE/anyone where you stay at..especially when you travel all the time. And its assumption making a case that Jesus when he was owning a house/feeling bad for others living on the streets decided to make his place known to them/everyone -----as it could have easily been the case that Christ may have invited others into the home for shelter but did not want it to be something where it becomes a "new ministry" in town like a "homeless shelter"---as Christ did things in season/only what the Father did. He Christ did not come on the Earth to save all the Poor/Do a campaign to "end poverty" (or, for that matter, came to feed all in Israel just because he broke loaves/bread multiple times to feed after he got done teaching----as others would have demanded him to make a "ministry" out of something temporary), as He only did what his Father in Heaven Commanded....And as the Law system already had a system set up to aid the poor (as in Jewish culture), there's no reason to assume that Christ contracting on various homes meant he did not already try to aid the poor via giving/offering and prayer.

Okay then.... who said carpenters couldn't own homes? Where are you getting this stuff?

The moment you came out of left field saying Jesus--who was a carpenter---could not have owned a home, as you're bent on proving.

see above, I already addressed all this nonsense you attribute to me

Again, what's "nonsense" is that you fail to do counter to what you accuse others of and then trip on it. A couple of other posters had the same issue earlier--and I'm sad you alone cannot see that.

I freely admitted He could have rented, I'm not sure what your point here is, but since you brought up the issue of privacy, let's look into that...let's say that this guy, who is famous and always drawing crowds,

He wasn't always drawing crowds--as that happend AFTER he began PUBLIC ministry. Context and setting, Bruh...as Jesus was pretty average/underground before then

comes to you and rents a home...how likely are you to brag about it...if let's say, President Obama rented your house, and you like all businessmen want to maximize your profits, why would you keep it a secret that He was staying there? What if He lived next door, what would stop you from building your reputation and business by boasting of His living right next door. Most people boast of much less...so how then or better yet how likely is it that He remained "hidden" without the help of friends who put Him above their own interests?

Again, no one was arguing against that. So why you bring it up is pointless

how was that related to anything said? I really need a confused smilie..... not even close to what I was talking about....who do you think you are responding to? This isn't even close to what I was saying...you would be amazed at what I really know if you took the time to listen rather than assume what is not...but that doesn't happen very often on this board, so I'm not holding out hope...

Again, if/when you actually do what you want of others---which is to LISTEN rather than assume--you'd have a point. And again, you're just as much apart of what you say doesn't happen on the boards as anyone. So sit down..and think, for a bit

razzelflabben said:
so now showing possibles that testify to what i'm saying is proof texting...okay them...

I asked specifically for it to be shown that "Jesus returned home" meant that it was in reference to his home country---as I was discussing houses and you brought up a point about it meaning "home country" as well (which was not in the context of discussion).

and you challenged me to show that "going home" could mean either in scripture, of which I did, and you, instead of accepting it, made more accusations that are not true about my character

Seeing the myriad of things you've already said about others, you really have no basis for discussions "accusations about character",,...and again, as I asked for it to be shown that the scriptures I brought up (with dealt with "houses) meant "country"--to which you brought up Luke 4:24 and the saying of "only in his HOMETOWN" (which is nowhere what was being discussed). Focus

, which as I understand it is flaming, but I've been wrong before

Again, you conviently bring up flaming when it bothers you and yet you've already done so throughout this entire discussion

.

you asked me to prove in scripture how home could mean something other than a home owned by that individua 't have a clue, I said that home/house here could mean a home He owned, a home He rented, or a home of a family member in which He was always welcomed...[

Where did I ask you to show such? I said that home means "House"---and though it's likely Jesus could have owned it, its also likely that others could have owned it and he lived with them. Again, I've not disagreed with you that home could mean the home of another---but where I DID disagree was that in context of the scriptures I brought up, its error to say it means "homecountry" rather than a physical dwelling. Again, where did I say otherwise?

l and that is what I did, now your talking about context and something else of which I don't have a clue.

Nevernind. Be blessed, Bruh...

... cool.... very cool... awesome...you do know however, that all the poor are not centered in the projects, right?

Of course, as poverty also goes to RURAL areas as well as in Surburban ones.

again, amen...Personally I think scripture tells us that God asks something from all of us, the question is what is He asking....to one He may ask to come, to another stay, but each have been asked to obey....

Indeed

"Silver or gold I do not have"

Contributor

Contributor

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Contributor

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads