Common Scriptural teachings that are not practiced by Christians

[Neto]

re: Luke 12:33
I think that the context can provide a framework from which to understand Jesus' point. The preceding context is the story of a man who, having experienced a very successful harvest (or possibly a number of them, one year after another) did not think at all about the needs of those around him, but decided to stop working, and just lay back & take it easy. That is all pointless, he says. One might add (from other Scripture teaching contexts), that "You can't take it with you when you go", and if you still manage to be received into God's heaven, you will arrive "by the skin of your teeth", with nothing at all to show for a fleeting life lived on earth.
In verse 30 Jesus stresses that the Father KNOWS that you have these needs, and the implication is that he will provide them. This man had a heart issue. In my understanding of this text, that is the point of what Jesus said here. He also told people to deal with a lust problem by digging out their eye. But lust is in the eye of the heart, not in the physical eye. Stealing is not in the physical hand, but in the greedy hand of the heart. The story in the book of the Acts contrasts those who sold fields and freely gave the proceeds to the group to meet the needs within the group with the couple who decided to gain the respect of the group by selling a piece of land & then keeping part of the proceeds, while pretending that the gift was the entire amount. We can see that they didn't sell everything, just that one field. And Peter says to him, "The land was yours to do with as you chose. After you made the sale, the money was yours to use as you chose. So why think that you could lie to the Holy Spirit and get away with it?" The end result was the same as in the Luke text - his soul was taken from him - his life ceased. Luke 12:34 is, I think, the "heart" of what Jesus was saying: Where you place your priorities - "where your treasures are" - that is where your heart is. Their "heart" was in their reputation in the congregation, not in their reputation with God.

I think that if the possessions a person or couple has are being used to serve God and the people around them, then they have, in a sense, "sold all they have and given to the poor". That is perhaps the actual Scriptural teaching that is not being practiced by (all) Christians. But "do not judge another man's servant". It is a heart matter, and only God can see the heart. (This is what my atheist friend was doing - judging God's servants. Basically he was seeking to justify his own unbelief by pointing to what he sees as the disobedience of Christians around him. This is also not what he also attributes his unbelief to - that was quite another matter, although somewhat related, in that it was about "living life in the now". He actually praises his former father-in-law's example, which was in many ways exactly what Jesus was saying to do, a man who lived his life to bring the one most important message to everyone he met - the love of God, and the fellowship of Jesus. Again, that was the point of Jesus' invitation to the "rich young ruler" - the offer to exchange a seeker's life for one of a close and spiritually intimate relationship with him.

[Neto]

Actually, however, an atheist FB friend recently brought up how "All those Christians ignore what Jesus told the rich young man." (He DOES actually know the Scripture, as he graduated from Moody Bible Institute, was an ordained minister, and also a Bible Translator.)

Then he ought to know what Luke 12:33 says: “Sell what he have, and give alms;”
This is Jesus teaching His disciples, (also in Matthew 6).

Question: Did Jesus literally mean to sell?
Question: If Jesus only was talking to the disciples, and not us, what is the dividing line in the sermon on the Mount of what was only teachings or commands for the immediate audience and his disciples, and what teachings or commands are for every Christian of all ages?

I think that we tend to assume that Jesus told them to sell everything they own, all at once. I do believe that Jesus meant that we should "sell what we have to meet the needs of those around us", but if it is a heart issue (as I think it is), then it is an injunction to make one's LIFE a "selling of what you have" and a "giving to the poor", both those who are materially poor, and those who are spiritually poor. The latter is harder to do, and it may well require "keeping" some of the physical goods that have come to us. I don't think he meant to say that we should make ourselves a financial burden by materially impoverishing ourselves. If that were the case, then if everyone followed this command, then what? No one would have any possessions which could be sold for the good of those around them. It is a life style. (Notice also that Judas kept the collective purse, and Jesus knew they had some cash on hand. He didn't tell him to go drop it all in the alms box. Possessing things requires proper management, management with a core value. If that core value is self, then it's completely off-base.)

As to the question of whether those mentioned in Acts 4 sold everything all at once, verse 34 reads with a customary continual action portrayed: "for all who were owners of lands or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, [which would then] be distributed to each, as any had need." (NASB). It isn't a Past Tense Completed Action being described.

[Sudsy]

Matthew 5:48

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jesus often used hyperbole in His teachings and there are many examples. Is this hyperbole ? If not, since it is a command are all of us imperfect believers living in disobedience ? I have yet to meet a Christian who lives without any flaws in their life if this is what Jesus meant by being perfect.

This perhaps may not be a common scriptural teaching but if this verse has been explained to you, how do you believe what Jesus commanded that we be perfect ? How does one differentiate Jesus teachings using hyperbole from those meant to be followed literally ?

Well, I guess I asked a lot of questions here but can one say they are living in obedience to this command ?

[Soloist]

Matthew 5:48

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jesus often used hyperbole in His teachings and there are many examples. Is this hyperbole ? If not, since it is a command are all of us imperfect believers living in disobedience ? I have yet to meet a Christian who lives without any flaws in their life if this is what Jesus meant by being perfect.

This perhaps may not be a common scriptural teaching but if this verse has been explained to you, how do you believe what Jesus commanded that we be perfect ? How does one differentiate Jesus teachings using hyperbole from those meant to be followed literally ?

Well, I guess I asked a lot of questions here but can one say they are living in obedience to this command ?

Is an Apple perfect before it’s ripe?
Is an Apple perfect if it doesn’t grow?
Is an Apple perfect if it rots on the tree?

My point really is that we can be perfect at times for our maturity in Christ but if we stop growing, we stop being perfect.
Likewise if we rot on the tree or make bad choices and meditate on evil… how can we be perfect?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Matthew 5:48

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jesus often used hyperbole in His teachings and there are many examples. Is this hyperbole ? If not, since it is a command are all of us imperfect believers living in disobedience ? I have yet to meet a Christian who lives without any flaws in their life if this is what Jesus meant by being perfect.

Jesus was not using hyperbole here, BUT the word "perfect" has connotations today that don't fit in the context of the passage (The Sermon on the Mount section about loving enemies). The Greek word here more precisely means "complete," and we can understand many different English words to fit here. "Whole" is a good translation of the word, but doesn't make sense. "Holistic" fits better. Here is what I prefer:

In context, Jesus is telling us to love not only our brothers, but our enemies, without partiality. Love each and every person as you would your brother, because then you'll be behaving like God, who makes sunshine and rain fall on ALL types of people, righteous and unrighteous, your friends and your enemies. God is "holistic" in how He disperses his blessings. For God so loved the world... etc... so we should disperse our love on everyone too. We should not show bias.

I prefer the word "indiscriminant" over the word "perfect".

"If you love only your brother, what good is that? Show love to enemies, and you'll be like your Father in heaven, who makes sunshine and rain fall on the righteous and the unrighteous. Therefore, be indiscriminate, just as your heavenly Father is indiscriminant."

[Soloist]

eating locusts

Where do you find that as a Scriptural teaching?

Well, I guess it isn't a scriptural teaching or commandment. But the eating of locusts is authorized in Leviticus and they are what John the Baptist lived on along with wild honey.

Wife: By this measure, my son is a better Christian than I am. He thinks honey flavored sounds better tasting than taco flavored was, though, and technically, they were crickets.

[Ernie]

His 2000 project came back to mind at the end of 2012 when he and his family moved to Richmond, Va. Along with all his family's possessions, most ironically of all, Freyer moved a few cases of his book "All My Life for Sale" to his new house.

I run away from such folks as fast as I can.