Sheshbazzar

Ho'kay rhutchin, YOU are being invited to present us with the "context" that makes those verses in post # 66 above mean anything other than what I presented.

I'll note again that he says in;
Matthew 19:29, "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brothers.....or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake"

And in Mark 10:29, "There is no man that hath left house, ..... or wife or children..."

And in Luke 9:62, "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God."

Explain away. (and don't think you will get away with just these three, I have NOT forgotten those other verses in post # 66, and I don't intend to let you either.)

rhutchin

Here is the context:

Matthew 19
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

The context is that people forsake "...houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands,..." and do so "...for my name’s sake,..."

If we can determine what "...for my name’s sake,..." means, then we can determine the conditions under which a person would forsake "...houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands,..." I don't see that you have done this.

A couple references in Matthew to this:

And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake:... Matthew 10:22

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. Matthew 10:22

The closest to a definition in from Revelation:

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Revelation 2:2-3

To act for Jesus name's sake is to resist evil. Thus, we find that a disciple of Christ must forsake the evil done even by family members. A person does not forsake family for no reason but only in those instances where the family does those things that oppose Christ (i.e., does evil). If the family were to follow Christ also, then we would not find the person forsaking them. A family that opposes Christ in order to continue in their evil would not seem to be upset at being forsaken by the follower of Christ.

I have scanned the context of the other verses you cite and this context seems to apply there also.

Do you see a different context in any of the verses you cite?

Sheshbazzar

Creative reinterpretation of His commandment and CALL rhutchin.
"then we can determine the conditions under which a person would forsake" ....home, wife and children.
You write;
If a man, being a husband, has in his home, a five year old, a three year old, and a year old child, and a father laying dying,
shall he be righteousness in saying; "for the evil that is done by my family, I must forsake and leave my home, my wife and children, and dying father"?

You write;
Ahhh, yes, the old -blackmail- strategy of "converting" the family to your -own- "form" of religion; either they will recite after you, or else you are going to abandon, forsake and leave them all, because they are all together just -so- evil, and -you-, of course are just -so- righteous and good.



Creative reinterpretation of his commandment and CALL rhutchin. "then we can determine the conditions under which a person would forsake" ....home, wife and children.
"Conditions" rhuchin, you would impose your own set of "conditions" upon your obeying of The Masters call?
It is The Master that sets His conditions. His servants do not get to arbitrarily select when or under what "conditions" they will finally obey and follow their Masters orders.
Your evasive interpretation of The Masters call neglects the very immediacy of that call.

I see a context of -time-, and one of -duty- here, rhutchin.
The when, of when you are to forsake all ,and to leave, your home, wife, children, and family, to hear His voice and follow Him.

You would like to make that break to be at your own time and convenience? or only after you are finally fed up with your failed attempts at converting them, or maybe never at all?
Or perhaps you would just rather take some time and say some farewells? or perhaps wait for your parents to die? (Matt 8:21-22)(Luke 9:59-62)
Or do you say that The Masters CALL was only for them few unto whom it was spoken, and for them of that Day alone?

Then again, this "CALL" does not at all imply nor specify that those who are so called, are forsaking and leaving their families because their families are deemed to be "evil", rather only that it is -the servant's- obligation upon hearing his Master's CALL, to "GO!", and as a consequence of going, to abandon, to forsake and leave home, wife and children to be obedient to The Master"s call. It has nothing at all to do with what the wife, children and parents might happen to think or believe.

Today, If you would hear Him, to be His servant, one obedient to His voice, and doing all those things whatsoever He has commanded you, then your arguments and reasoning's would be those of a servant indeed.
You would be faithful in the doing of ALL, whatsoever He has commanded, in service of HIM, not because you have judged your wife, children, and family to be evil ones, so that you might find excuse to abandon them.

But Today, as it is written even "Today", "This day"; you do not hear, you do not DO, thus you do not speak words befitting of any true and faithful servant.
I am not impressed. Nakedness is not covered by holey and filthy rags, nor can one ever return to the place they have never yet arrived at.

rhutchin

I don't see why he would have to do that. In that situation, the disciple would lead the family to follow and do that righteousness that was consistent with Christ's teaching. If the "...five year old, a three year old, and a year old child, and a father laying dying..." all rose up and said, "NO, we do not want to do that and we refuse to do that and refuse to accept your leadership in this family," then the disciple would allow them to go that way and he would go in the opposite direction. If the dying father refuses to have anything to do with the disciple because of this, what then is the disciple to do? Does he allow the father to have nothing to do with him (thus forsaking him) or does he change and stop following Christ in order to make peace with the father? He continues to follow Christ, continues to insist on righteousness, and allows the father to become estranged from him thus forsaking him.

You, of course, have the creative interpretation of the passage by separating one verse from its context in order to make it say something that it does not. IF not, how do you deal with the qualifier "for my name’s sake," which cannot be ignored?

What blackmail?? The family surely has the right to choose to follow the disciple and adhere to righteousness or reject the leadership of the father and go their own way. If that decision has financial consequences, then let them be taken into account in making a decision.

Your analysis leaves out the qualifier, "for my name’s sake." Go back and work that qualifier into your analysis or your efforts don't mean anything. You can't pick and choose one thing while ignoring other things in order to get the conclusion you seek and expect to get anything meaningful.

storytime

From my understanding of Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem and their temple, there were some Jews, especially rabbis, who decided that Israel was not identified by the land but in the people which constituted their nation and independent nationality as separate from the world of other religions. In this regard, there would always be a Jewish nation state of people and Jewish identity in the world so as to demonstrate their religious beliefs.