Interesting, and i can see that interpretation, but given that, I would say that a wealthy person could certainly gain entrance to heaven by truly committing to Jesus, but that having wealth makes it almost impossible to obtain that entrance since the pitfalls of money make giving oneself over truly difficult. If you ever make a decision based on wealth and not on Christian doctrine then you are not fully committed. Opting not to sell the extra car to donate to Christian charities and help the poor is putting ones wealth above ones devotion to Jesus and truly accepting what and why Jesus died for you. Is this in line with your interpretation?
Funny story about false idols One of the pastors at my church has an old 1980's piece of crap Mercedes that he had to take into the shop so the dealership gave him a brand new Mercedes while his was getting fixed as a loaner. Our senior pastor took a pen and paper and wrote FALSEIDOL and taped it to his plates.
I've been an active Catholic my whole life, went to Catholic school for 9 years, have been active in bible study, youth group, etc... and have never heard this interpretation.
I guess I'll cop out a bit and say that I disagree with the bolded. As I believe and practice my faith, sexual-based sins aren't any more or less unholy than anger-based ones or money-based ones. Some people have a much harder time seeing a bikini-clad woman on a beach without lusting than in having a couple of drinks with friends without losing their witness. Some have a much harder time with the "pitfalls of wealth" and greed for more than in being a good father to unruly children or a good son to handicapped parents. Some don't. I think that when you find people who are actively attempting to live their lives according to Jesus you'll se multiple different people using their gifts and dealing with life's challenges in different manners. I have no problem drinking alcohol, because I am not a slave to alcohol and don't drink to impairment. I know some people for whom that would be a major challenge and stumbling block to sin. You could put a lit joint in front of me and I wouldn't feel conflicted at all in saying "no thank you." I know other people for whom that would be catastrophic. I don't look at porn b/c I have an active imagination and when I have in the past the images stay with me for much longer than I want them to, and the lust was not in keeping with how I want to live my life. I'm lucky that my temper isn't what some people have, because I don't have that challenge in my life that would potentially cause me to be a poor witness. However, I've found that based on my work and hobbies I'm not able to do some of the things I'd like to do. I can't do a year-long mission to somewhere--God's never gifted me with that ability., where some people cherish that. I'm gifted to have children, where I know others who have had to struggle with multiple miscarriages and be told by not-well-meaning people that it's "probably because of some unresolved sin" and now are scarred. I'm rambling now, but I don't think there's anything more special (or pleasing to the Lord) about selling a second car and giving the money away to someone than in keeping the car while helping out your parents or giving to your church. I guess I also don't feel a conviction about it, just as I don't feel a conviction about drinking or working in the military where others might severely struggle with that.
Thanks for explanation Brian. I could see your view, that it's not the wealth but the dependence on wealth (instead of on ones faith) that can be the blockade. If you simply have wealth, but are not greedy with it, don't rely on it, aren't obsessed with it, then it's just like drinking for you and I (alcohol is a take it or leave it thing for me, no big deal). This is an interesting topic, both the religious aspects and also for atheists like myself, who also often don't help the poor or less fortunate as much as I personally think one should. As Denny has pointed out, greed is useful, it gets us stuff, it gets us power, it gets us laid, it gets us status, it gets us respect, it gets us relaxation and everything else under the sun. But just because greed get's us stuff, doesn't mean we should live our lives according to it, because the results are often devastating from environmental catastrophes to the deaths of millions, the results of greed will kill society. I think this aspect of religion is a good one, pointing out that something is more important than yourself. It's good for people to recognize this. For me, I recognize it most when i look at the complexities in our universe, from the vastness of space to the vastness of an atom. It's good to be humbled.
There is actually. Refer to http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/eye_of_a_needle.htm for an in-depth look at some different options for how to interpret. I've always like the gate idea as it does make it seem difficult but the fourth explanation in this guys analysis is very compelling. An excerpt: Gramps...
It's not the bible that is in conflict here. It is the constitution and rightly so. No where in there is the government authorized to take and redistribute wealth. A rich man can give away a ton of money and many do but Obama and his ilk would talk about fair share the rest of their days no matter what. Alway have always will. Ever hear a Democrat tell what percentage of tax is enough? No you have not, they never have even though they had it work up to 92 percent for Federal alone at one time. There was only one Democrat to ever say that was too much and he did indeed ask for it to be reduce and sigh the bill to make it so. JFK did that deed he lowered it to 70% top bracket. But Let me tell you, you would not like it, but I never heard a Democrate say that was too much. Mind boggling when you consider that the original income tax called for a maximum of 7 %. Thank god some Republicans managed to get it back down to some sane levels from the insane level the uber democrats FDR and Wilson managed to achieve. Even the relief JFK brought was not near enough. But then just think how much better it could be if only the Constitution were followed as every President say he will do in his oath of office.
In regard to the rich and giving. I believe we are not supposed to give grudgingly. When the wealthy are taxed so that their wealth can be redistributed, they are generally giving willingly. By having the government enforce wealth redistribution, we are, to a degree, taking away some of people agency in making a choice to give or not give. Some will still give but others may not. Blessed are those who give and those rich who do not, will reap their appropriate reward in the next life. It is not money (wealth) that condemns us, but the love of it (i.e., coveting our wealth and not being willing to share). Gramps...
Your link actually says the same thing I did--that there's no historical evidence to support the claim that there was some gate into Jerusalem known as "the needle's eye". I am very familiar with the interpretation that the Greek word commonly translated as "camel" should actually be "rope"; however neither option changes the meaning of the passage, IMO.
1 Tim 5 v4 This passage seems to say that people should take care of there family. There's also some antiquated rules about widows have to be older than 60 and people must add a little wine to their water. II Thess 3 These passages seem to be a warning against idleness. I wouldn't interpret these passages to mean only give to "the poor who work (or who have worked their entire life and now are old) and who have no children or relatives to help them." I think Jesus was pretty clear in Matthew 25:34-46
Here's the whole passage (including what you call "antiquated rules", bolding mine) II Thess 3These passages seem to be a warning against idleness.[/quote] They are an admonition not to associate with those who don't work and/or are unwilling to work. I imagine that, even if you somehow took it to mean that you could still give money (or were supposed to give money) to people who don't work or are unwilling to work, I find it hard to parse away the meaning of the rule in v.10: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Why? It's quite clear that if you have family, you're supposed to get support from them. If you aren't working, or are unwilling to work, you aren't to be associated with (and, my interpretation, given money as well). I don't pretend to know much about the Catholic faith, so I don't want this to devolve, but it seems pretty clear from my understanding. I've never really heard differently.
Actually This discussion with Jesus is all about him letting everyone in on the truth that being admitted to heaven is not about wealth. The rich man has no more a claim on the right to heaven than the poorest among us. The right to be admitted to heaven is about doing as God demands, no amount of wealth can grease the skids. One way in, no alliterative can be purchased. Finally, even giving away your wealth will not get it done if that's all you can account.
It seems to me that according to that line you may be partially right, that nobody has claim to heaven, rich or poor. However, the words of Jesus go further than that, they make it known that having wealth can make it much more difficult to gain entrance than not being wealthy. There is nothing saying a wealthy person can't obtain heaven, but that the pitfalls (greed, gluttony, sloth) that often come with wealth make navigating the heavenly waters a very difficult task. That's my take at least.
It seems to me, we agree, not that we partially agree. Wealth is no hindrance nor is it an aid. Obsessing over one's wealth or using it to purchase diversion could prevent a person from earning god's grace and with it, entry to heaven. Of course the poor may also find the way difficult standing idly by rather providing for their keep. This surely must be the case for any man that fails to provide for his children. I can't think of anything more sloven than an idle man with hungry children.
And yet "the meek shall inherit the earth". I know this too has been interpreted many ways, some bibles don't translate meek, but gentle. But either way, often the person of wealth gains such riches (or keeps them) through coercion, aggression, and certainly not gentleness or meekness. I just think it's interesting, how people interpret the same words differently. I mean, we both agree that punching a man is aggressive, but what about pressure sales tactics or stuff like that. I find it interesting that some people are able to look at the historical context and underlining meaning of parables and find an opposite meaning to someone else who either interprets the same things differently, or tries to make no interpretations and just takes words at face value (ie Eve was made from an actual rib of Adam, or the universe us 6000 years old.).
I never did understand the use of meek in the bible. It seems to mean something entirely different than todays dictionary suggests. Certainly not very docile or meek as a mouse. More like a morality quality, perhaps Humble in manner but not deferring. It maybe a thing with the writer of the Psalms but then Numbers 12:3 referrers to Moses as "very meek, above all the men which upon the face of the earth". Now I doubt the leader of his nation was a mouse but he well may have been a Humble man along with very assertive which would take considerable talent. Then you need to consider that most of the usage of meek in question in the bible are in the old testament, written by a rabi of Israeli or Judha. These are not the teachings of Jesus on how to prepare to be a candidate for heaven.
