Do you agree that material acquisition is the dominant common motivation for American culture? Not endemic as a whole, but the common denominator which defines and fuels our society? Do you agree that Jesus said that it was impossible for a wealthy man to get to Heaven? If so, he's saying a bit more than 'Donlt go too far', and it's a bit more antithetical to US culture than it being a struggle to reconcile the two. I realize that this is coming across as an attack. Not meant to be at all.
I agree that material acquisition is the dominant common motivatin for American culture. I agree that runs contra to the teachings of Christ. We're in agreement there. I do not agree that Christ said it is impossible for a rich man to go to heaven, because he did not say it. He said, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." And the disciples basically arrived at the conclusion you reached...but then he corrected them and said something like, "with man it is impossible...but with God all things are possible."
1) Cool. 2) My understanding was that that was about post-applied concerns. I'll have to review. Either way, though, it's nigh impossible, which states it as antithetical. 3) And carefull, mon ami. That last quote comes dangerously close to using the Bible as moral relativism..
i disagree. it's not moral relativism. the bible sets a standard that men have miserably failed living to before a holy God. that failure points to the need for a savior. it doesn't give license to keep on sinning (paul goes into this big time)..in fact, paul says, shouldn't that grace make us want to live more for Christ as a response of love. not that we earn our salvation or God's favor...that's the gift...but that we should be transformed by it, nonethless. does that make sense? what you're seeing in the quote about the camel through the eye of the needle is Jesus demonstrating the need for a savior...with man it's impossible, but with God all things are possible. that transformation that makes the rich man a generous man is the product of salvation, not a condition precedent to it.
btw, I was taught that the eye of a needle was actually a desert rock formation that camels had to squeeze through sometimes. It doesn't mead a sewing needle. Or does everyone already know this?
If that's true, why the word "rich"? If it's just about what is possible with/without God, wealth would have no bearing. It would be impossible for a bald man, a tall man, or any man to get into Heaven without God.
because they were talking about a rich man that approached Jesus...there was context for it. it isn't just said out of the blue. Jesus threw things on their head a lot....last shall be first...poor shall be rich...least shall be greatest..etc. Totally disrupts a social structure bent on power.
As far as Americans ignoring the non-ownership of personal wealth Christ talked about. I agree that there are plenty who do that. I've heard them bring up other verses than the one Max did in order to justify their desire etc. Max's answer is the closest I've seen to saying it's harder if you are wealthy but it's still ok to be wealthy. However, if we follow Christ's example then wealth is out of the question. Christ told his disciples to travel, and go to towns, and basically count on handouts. He said that if people don't give you handouts to brush the dust off your feet at them and move on. Jesus relied on others for his monitary needs. That has to be hard for people like Bama to swallow, but it's the way the bible is written. There are some other passages in the bible that talk about not everyone being able to be a disciple like person, and that teachers should teach etc. So Jesus doesn't advocate nobody working at all. I don't see what Jesus was saying as bad, but to some in America it completely goes against a certain ethic that they hold, so they try to use other bits of scripture to rationalize what they say. But if we follow not only Jesus' word but his example, then wealth is not something to be strongly desired for sure. There is also no shame in poverty.
I think you are misunderstanding me. If the man was qualified as a rich man, and Jesus said " It is easier for a rich man..." etc., then obviously the relevant quality was wealth. Especially as it came in conjuction with JC telling him to give away all his possessions. Seems pretty clear to me. It wasn't just that a rich man happened to be the subject of conversation, and had circumstances differed, JC's diatribe on the power of God could have gone " It is easier for a bald man...etc. "
The greatest apostle of them all was probably Paul...he supported his ministry by being a tentmaker and he was very wealthy. He came from an influential family...he was a Roman citizen...he was both Jewish and Roman, which gave him a distinct advantage in evangelism. He was one of the temple elite that Jesus called out...a student of Gamaliel, the most respected Jewish teacher of the day. Someone has to make the money that God asks us to tithe. Churches have to be supported...missions have to be supported. Making wealth is not a bad thing....hording it is...not sharing it is a bad thing. Making God's will secondary to your desire for personal riches is. If you feel God is calling you to walk away from it...and you can't...that's a bad thing. Everything was a question of the heart with Christ. It's too legalistic to say, "well, if your income exceeds this level, God isn't cool with you" or vice versa.
Paul was wealthy, etc. BEFORE his conversion. Afterwards he lived according to Jesus' preachings; ir poorly, hand to mouth, and on the move. BTW, what's your postion on James the Just? Jesus' brother, as archelogical/historical texts would have it, or just another disciple, as church authorities maintain?
I agree but Paul came into it Rich. I also agree that God's will should come first, and that is the main point. But there are also passages when Jesus talks about giving up everything, including your family to follow him, so it is too a great degree of sacrifice to his will that he is talking about. I also agree that missions have to be supported and that Christ was asking people to expect others to support them. Christ also talked about the sharing of wealth, and mentioned how much valuable it was when a poor person shared, than when a wealthy one did, etc. Again while the bible doesn't preclude wealth, it does mention the difficulty of being a good follower and being wealthy.
i think there's every indication in the world James is his brother in that he's Mary's son. i really don't know why there is disagreement on that. i believe the Catholic Church holds fast against that assertion. but we both claim the same Jesus, so I try not to let things like that impede that. paul was wealthy..and continued to be wealthy. i've read nothing to suggest he disinherited himself of that money, though he may very well have given it all away over time. he was a tentmaker as he travelled, finding work in nearly every community he visited. he literally set up shop in the places he visited...in the book of acts it talks about some of the apostles following merely as support...they would go and get jobs or do work in the communities to support the ministry.
James' being just another disciple or a brother is viewed differently by different church authorities. The Catholic Church believes that Mary had no other children other than Christ. The Christian Church(Disciples of Christ)* believes that James was Jesus' brother. *I called it the Christian Church orginally and added in the ( ) so people would understand that I don't believe that's the only denomination of Christians. It's what they call themselves, and it's where the 'C' in TCU comes from. They actually leave most of the differences in biblical interpretation up to the individuals. The only requirement for being a member is that you believe in Jesus as the Son of God and the Savior - in other words that you are a Christian. There are no other requirements for membership.
1. agree..he came into it rich...and that's further proof that with God, all things are possible. get my meaning? he didn't say, "Well, Paul's not poor, so he can't possibly be my disciple." The transformation of rich to poor (which i think is more about power in Paul's example than actual wealth) was a product of a transformation that Paul never credits himself for. 2. yes..you have to be willing to leave it all behind if He asks you to. but not everyone gets the call to leave their families behind. certainly there was specific information for these guys...but Paul also talks big time about the responsibilities of being a spouse and a parent. 3. totally agreed...can't we all see how much more challenging it would be to live a life of humility with great riches?? i don't think that's hard to see at all. but it's not a cookie-cutter type thing...because I happen to know people who make lots of money and give it away like crazy, living in homes and driving cars that are far less than they could afford, otherwise.
A) Cool. Was just a question out of curiosity, not an attempt at a 'wedge issue'. B) I think his writings and JC's teachings make it pretty clear that the disciples were expected to give up all wordly possessions, including families. Also JC instructed the bald, rich man to do likewise. It seems pretty consistent. I donlt doubt that at times they pursued wordly occupations as a means of survivval, but that and wealth acquisition are not the same.
Mathew 19 6-30. As far as whether or not Paul left his wealth behind, I highlight the passage, given the context. 16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, "`Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and `love your neighbor as yourself." 20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" 26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 27 Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?" 28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30 But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
i don't think we disagree. i guess what i'm saying is if a guy is in a high paying job, it doesn't bar him from the kingdom of God. that probably sounds self-serving...but i just know so many people who make a good deal of money, but share it so willingly...it is not something that has control over their lives, rather they are thankful for their blessings and share it with a grateful appreciation. it's something we all struggle with. i think about it as i save for my own retirement...and my child's college...i don't know if there's an easy answer...and i pray on it a lot. "am i being a good steward of everything (money or otherwise) that God has blessed me with?" that's not really an easy question to ponder through.
you're right, MacB...those guys literally left everything behind. they were his chosen 12, to be sure. the question you asked though is one of salvation...can a rich man enter heaven? can he be saved? certainly not without God...but that is true of all of us.
