quote:
The reason why Jesus told that man to give away his possessions is not because that would merit eternal life, but because that man's god was his wealth and possessions.

Jesus knew this, which is why when the man approached Jesus and asked what good work he must do (according to the law), Jesus started by talking about the second table of the law (man's duty to his neighbor), and then after the rich man said he's kept those perfectly from birth (he didn't, but only thought he did), Jesus brings him back to the first commandment by showing this man that his wealth was his true god.

You're right that the Scriptures teach that Christians must do good works and not just make a profession of faith, however the way the Scriptures talk about works is as the result or fruit of faith, not a basis of salvation. We are not saved by works, but by faith that is evidenced by works. The rich young man that Jesus was talking to lacked faith, and it was evidenced by his rejection of Christ.

Jesus told him to the keep the commandments.

And he told the man to sell his riches for the same thing I highlighted earlier in Matthew 6:24. You can not serve 2 masters.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Squirrelmeister

Member since Nov 2021

3694 posts

Posted on 11/19/25 at 8:59 pm to FooManChoo

quote:
You can argue the dating all you want.

And you can argue for variant traditions that the majority of scholars (secular and religious including ones from the fifth century) agree is not the original.

quote:
You contradicted yourself in your own post.

No, I didn’t.

quote:
Whether the singular or plural form is original is debated.

But all the best evidence demonstrates singular was the original. Argue away anyhow, because it’s not the truth that matters to you, it’s your emotional needs that matter the most.

quote:
There are several instances where the oldest variant isn't accepted as original for the same sorts of reasons why newer variants may not be seen as original that go beyond the age.

That’s not relevant to this specific case.

quote:
But even if I granted that the original word for staff in Luke was singular rather than plural, it still doesn't change the overall argument being made, as I summarized previously: "Jesus told the disciples to go in a hurry and take nothing more than what they need to get on the road, trusting in God's provision on their journey."

Are you straw manning? I certainly wasn’t arguing against the stories agreeing Jesus said got in a hurry and don’t take much stuff. I think I demonstrated simply that in one gospel Jesus says to take a staff, and in another gospel he says not to take a staff. So what if the overall message from Jesus is the same. My argument was the contradiction existed. It does not matter that it doesn’t change the meaning of Jesus’ message.

quote:
They were to get going right away, not taking time to go buy what they were lacking or to get it from their homes or elsewhere. They were to head out and trust in the Lord to provide for what they needed on the way.

So… what? Focus on the staff / no staff.

quote:
Since I'm still learning Greek, here is someone's take on the grammar that deals with it better than me.

Nice!

Whoever wrote that mentions the sandals / no sandals contradiction between Mark and Matthew too.

He mentions:

quote:
In case you think such “language leeway” in the Greek sounds absurd, remember that this flexibility appears frequently in the English language. Consider two basketball coaches who are commenting on a player. One says, “He is bad;” the other says, “He is good.” The coaches may be using two different words to mean the same thing. The truth is, in some contexts the words “bad” and “good” are opposites, in other situations they are synonymous.

Same is true with “take”/“lift up” and “acquire”/“get” in English. I think the guy you linked supports my argument.

I can to the store to grab, take, pick up, get, or acquire something that I own. I can acquire the money I left at the house. I can grab or pick up a jug of milk from the store. Most Greek expert critical scholars will tell you that the words chosen by the synoptic authors means the same thing in context.

They were not supposed to take a bunch of crap with them - you admit that. Where you get really retarded is with Matthew where you are saying they could take any and all manner of crap with them that they own, but they couldn’t go out and procure any “extra stuff”. Do you see how silly you sound. On one hand you are telling me…

quote:
Jesus told the disciples to go in a hurry and take nothing more than what they need to get on the road, trusting in God's provision on their journey.

And on the other hand with Matthew you are saying presumably they can take all the gold and silver and shoes and tunics and 10 staffs if they have them but don’t get an extra staff. It’s juvenile.

Mark - take a staff and wear sandals
Matthew - don’t take a staff nor sandals
Luke - don’t take a staff (doesn’t mention sandals)

Cut flips all you want trying to say the Matthew Jesus was saying not to buy an extra staff or additional set of sandals. Argue all you want the late variant of a small minority of Luke manuscripts that scholars acknowledge as not original is the correct reading - but we all know the original was rhabdon (singular), and even if it was plural it doesn’t change the meaning.

How it must have been for you as a child… “Foo, don’t put your hands on that hot stove - it’ll burn you!” Then you proceed to touch the burner because she didn’t say not to touch it with ONE hand. Your argument is ridiculous and stupid.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by FooManChoo

Member since Dec 2012

46863 posts

Posted on 11/24/25 at 10:00 am to 3down10

quote:
Jesus told him to the keep the commandments.

Which is something he couldn't do, even though the man thought he had kept all the commandments from birth. Jesus highlighted that he couldn't even keep the first commandment, because that man made money his god. Jesus wasn't giving this man the key to salvation through works, but was pointing out that the requirements of the law were perfect obedience, which this man couldn't do on his own, though he thought he could and had. That's why Jesus would tell everyone to believe in Him for eternal life, not do good works for salvation. Good works are taught in the Bible to be a sign of salvation, not a meritorious cause of it.

quote:
And he told the man to sell his riches for the same thing I highlighted earlier in Matthew 6:24. You can not serve 2 masters.

Elsewhere, Jesus merely said to believe in Him, not sell your possessions. In fact, the only times Jesus tells anyone to give away their possessions is with the rich young man and Jesus' disciples, who were going to be provided for by Jesus during His ministry. Judas did this very thing and there is no indication that he was truly saved, as he also betrayed Christ.

We have Paul saying that if he gives away all that he has but doesn't have love, he hasn't gained anything (1 Cor. 13:3).

We also have the story of Ananias and Saphira, who sold a piece of land and held back part of the proceeds and were killed by God for it. In that example, they were specifically told that they were punished for lying, not for holding back money, or not selling everything they had. They were specifically told that they owned both the land and the money from the land and could have done with it however they wanted, but lying about how much of the proceeds they were giving away in order to be looked at favorably instead of wanting to please God was the cause of their punishment.

So no, merely doing good works--including giving away your possessions--is not sufficient for salvation, as no one can be justified by the works of the law (Gal. 2:16).

Page First 9 10 11