To whom is he speaking here, then:
Seems pretty clear to me. Don’t do it.
DGTC the King James Version also reads the same way as the New Living Translation. The first thing Jesus told the disciples, in the KJV, was the fact it is very hard for a rich person to make it into the Kingdom of Heaven. While I am on the topic I will take the opportunity to add Jesus never used the word “impossible,” because it is not impossible for rich people to go to heaven. It most certainly is possible for rich people to got to heaven but to use Jesus’ words it is “very hard”.
Furthermore, what evidence do you have, other than your standing alone assumed vaunted expertise, the NLT is a highly biased, non-literal and dumbed down translation of the bible.
Finally, to some extent, you and I are beginning to agree. The point of the parable, as I admitted earlier, was the rich persons refusal to help out Lazarus. As I have always noted, Jesus is condemning the behavior of the rich individual for not loving God more than his riches, or for the individual’s failure to love humanity more than his riches, such as “Love they Neighbor as thyself.” Jesus is condemning the “action” and not the status. Hence, the rich person in the parable was not condemend because of their status but rather because of his lack of compassion, as you also noted.
“Dude, I mean, I really like my yacht and 30mil mansion, but you know, I don’t like it THAT much. Not more than Jesus, certainly!”
So is compassion and pity only a factor when it’s in direct view? As long as millions are starving far away, and you get as far away as possible so that you can’t later be paired with some poor sod in a parable, s’okay?
So the moral of the story is that the rich man didn’t build a big enough gate around his property so that Lazarus wouldn’t be able to get to the rich man’s doorstep and thus involve him in the story?
Even if there is wiggle room here, though, can you imagine how quickly people would take it as a plain truth if it were about something like homosexuality? How any ambiguity would be totally ignored?
“Try not not to sucketh any dicks on thy way to yon stableyard.”
I am still waiting for you to reconcile your statement with this scripture. Any of you other apologists for the wealthy Christian can chime in any time you want.
Chapter and verse, dawg. Give me chapter and verse. You keep citing a passage that I can’t find in any of my Bibles. Don’t give me versions, give me chapter and verse. If you’re trying to argue that this is a valid translation of the “camel” verse, you’re wrong.
Which gospel are you referring to? I don’t see it in any of the Canonicals?
Actually, those are not Jesus’ words. those are words that you seem to have made up. Jesus said that whole bit about the camel and the needle which was a colorful way of saying “impossible.”
Don’t take my word for it, dawg. Learn to read Greek and see for yourself.
[QUOTE=rjung]
If these folks – the ones who are the first to be offended whenever a movie about Jesus doesn’t meet their high standards (see The Last Temptation of Christ for example) QUOTE]
That particular example has always irked me. I’m an atheist, but I love that film and can appreciate what it was trying to convey. The central theological issue of Jesus’ human part, and what that implied, was enough to split the Church and create the divide between Rome and the Byzantines. Yet modern-day Christians seem totally unwilling to even air that discussion, and just dismiss this movie out of hand. Hell, they should be loving that movie, the scene at
Jesus’ deathbed, after hopping down from the cross and living a full life, really demonstrates the value of the crucifixion. In that powerful scene, as the second Temple is destroyed and the city lays under fire, the value of the sacrifice is really made clear, as well as the scope.
The human side of Jesus in that movie makes the notion that his death really was a sacrifice much more valid.
BTW, on this issue of Christianity and wealth, I’ve asked Xian friends what they thought, and postulated a possible rationale myself. I’m no Christian, but I have an interest in theology and religion. I think the point of those anti-wealth parts of the gospels is to say that wealth can be an impediment, distracting the believer from what they are supposed to give more attention towards. I don’t see it as an indictment of wealth, or disparity in wealth, in and of itself (“the poor will always be with us…”) Rather, I think it’s making the (IMHO valid) observation that religious faith and hope for an afterlife, trust for salvation from the supernatural, comes far more easily among the poor and downtrodden, who have no hope for material gain. The man who is told to sell all his possessions has already told Jesus that he has done all his religion asks and still feels lacking in devotion, so clearly it was an impediment for him. Also, I think the story is meant to highlight the internal/external distinction among virtues and sins (CS Lewis readers, remember the analogy of the ships.)
One of the most misqouted sayings is “Money is the root of all evil.” It is actually “The love of money is the root of all evil.” Abject greed is what would keep you out of Heaven, or at least that’s how I interpret it. As rich as Bill Gates is, I suspect his wealth won’t be too much a factor since he’s pledged $1 billion to African health care. And who know how much to other orgs that aren’t reported.
One more thing, isn’t there something in the Bible that says charity, while a good/required deed, is nullified if you take credit for doing it? (Just thought I’d get the answer to that here rather than a new thread.)
Pardon me while I jump up and down, scream, and vent.
If I advise a close friend that smoking pot is a very bad idea, and that it could even get him thrown into jail for a very long time, that is not the same thing as calling up the DEA and turning his ass in when I see him do it.
Jesus is the one who will judge, and He will do so knowing every thing that has ever been in a person’s heart. Just giving your money away is not a free ticket to heaven. Failing to remember some tiny aspect of someone’s interpretation of scripture isn’t a fast track to Hell, either.
In the end, if the Lord is offended by Mel Gibson’s spiritual intent in the making of this movie, He will make Mel know of that sin. And of course, the catalog of sin is not the source of salvation. Christ, and the love He has for man is the source of Salvation. Our opinion is a matter for the measure of our own souls, each of us. Make your judgements with love.
I happen to think that it is unlikely that a career professional actor/producer would be surprised if his very best effort to provide already committed Christians with a powerful affirmation of faith produced a lucrative movie. The question of his charitable intentions is his business.
I don’t want replica crucifixion nails, though, thank you.
Are they auctioning off slivers of the new “True Cross?”
Strikes me as idolatrous, but so did the first round of slivers, Icons, and such.
But, I am no judge.
Tris
**I don’t want replica crucifixion nails, though, thank you.
Are they auctioning off slivers of the new “True Cross?”
Strikes me as idolatrous, but so did the first round of slivers, Icons, and such.**
I thought of this when I started to see the websites for this stuff.
Can anyone think of a bigger irony than if a Jew runs one of these sites?
Do you have any information on this or are just whistling in the dark?
I think Mel Gibson should be fine as long as he gives his 10%.
I can’t wait to apply this reasoning to adultery! I mean, as long as screwing my secretary isn’t an impediment to my loving eternal bond with my wife…
Now this is good.
Atheists who would slip a gear at the suggestion that Genesis should be interpreted literally insisting that the only possible understanding of the passage under discussion is a literal one, and selectively ignoring the evidence.
Jesus said that it is possible for a rich man to get into heaven. “For man, it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.” It’s in all three of the Synoptic Gospels - Matthew 17:19-21, Mark 10:26-28, Luke 18:26-28.
Regards,
Shodan
First of all, just because you say it is not the “correct” translation means absolutely nothing to me. Your words alone are about as pesuasive as the electrons dancing across my computer screen. Additionally, you have got it correct! I am not going to take your word for it! I am insisting you prove it! I do not have to learn Greek. The burden is on you to prove your conclusion and at this point you have proved nothing. I am not just going to “take your word for it”. Conclusions must be supported with evidence not “alleged credentials.” I say “alleged” since I have no way of really knowing you have been truthful about your level education on this topic. However, assuming your credentials are correct, they do not prove anything in regards to this topic. They are nothing more than hot air when it comes to proving your point.
KJV, Matthew 19:23Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. See never said it was “impossible” or could not happen. Rather Jesus used the word “hardly”.
Subsequent translations on the same verse to follow:
New International Version: *"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. *
New American Standard:*"Truly I say to you, (23) it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. *
Amplified:Truly I say to you, it will be difficult for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven.
New Living Translation:*I tell you the truth, it is very hard for a rich person to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. *
New Life Version:
*'For sure, I tell you, it will be hard for a rich man to get into the holy nation of heaven. *
English Standard Version:"Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.
Contemporary English Version:"It’s terribly hard for rich people to get into the kingdom of heaven!
New King James:*"Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. *
21st Century King James:"Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
American Standard Version:Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Worldwide English:*I tell you the truth. It is very hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. *
Young’s Literal Translation:Verily I say to you, that hardly shall a rich man enter into the reign of the heavens;
Darby Translation:Verily I say unto you, A rich man shall with difficulty enter into the kingdom of the heavens;
Now all those verses from those many different translations make the same point as the New Living Translation. Essentially each verse in each different translation says “It is very hard” for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but not impossible. Now I am waiting for Diogenes to argue each of these versions is biased!
Once again each translation only makes the statement it is difficult for a rich man to enter into heaven but not impossible. This is exactly what the New Living Translation said, the same version Diogenes said was “biased,” a claim I seriously doubt has much truth to it.
Okay, let’s examine the scripture.
What translation is this from? Are you sure it isn’t “biased”? 
I will first have to say it is necessary to ascertain what is meant by the phrase of “store up…treasures on earth”. I do not think it means one cannot acquire wealth or keep and save tangible goods because if so, then most of us are going to Hell. King David and King Soloman are most certainly already there if Jesus is stating we cannot save tangible goods. I think the last sentence conveys the point of the entire paragraph. Do not delight or love your “possessions”. Place your love and heart on the Kingdom of Heaven and God and let this be your treasure.
What atheists say that Genesis shouldn’t be interpreted literally? Atheists have no need to reconcile the Bible with science. Atheists don’t recognize the Bible as having any authority or significamce in the first place. Liberal Christians are the ones who require a non-literal interpretation. I think the Genesis creation story is intended to be taken literally and that it’s just wrong. Don’t put opinions into other people’s mouths.
Madison, OK, but your quotation is immedoiately followed by the camel quote which basically means it’s not just difficult but impossible. Jesus was pretty consistent in his contempt for wealth.
Do you think that you would be the rare, saintly exception who could handle wealth and still be saved? What rot.
I’m constantly amazed by how much contempt that a lot of Christians have for what Jesus actually taught. Instead of heeding Jesus’ warning about wealth, you choose to parse his words for a loophole. How very pious. :rolleyes:
Super-size my vinegar, please!
Doesn’t all this argument over the condemnation of the wealthy have strong literalist overtones?
To my (very, very, non-fundamentalist) eyes, the phrase is a hyperbolic condemnation of “wealth,” which is a relative property that varies between cultures and times. “Wealthy” people in 1st century Judea may have been very different then “wealthy” people in the 21st century United States. In the context of the rest of his message, I don’t read anything more into that passage then this: When your neighbor is hungry and you’re eating a feast prepared by servants, it’s pretty hypocritical to claim that you love your neighbor as much as yourself.
How conveniently you ignore the verse subsequent to this one. He then says with God all things are possible, i.e. with God it is possible for a rich man to get into heaven.
I think you are missing my point. I have always said Jesus was not condemning the “status” as much as he was condemning the love for riches and money. I think it is similar to Paul’s admonition about marriage. Each person should understand themselves to the extent whether or not they can go without sex. If not, then marry. Here each person should examine their heart and contemplate whether or not they can love God more than wealth. If so, then I do not see a problem. I am not denying Jesus was making firm warnings that “wealth” can deprive a man of his place in heaven because of the human affinity to love “wealth” more than God. What I am denying is your dubious claim no rich person can enter heaven. Rather, it is possible for a rich person to enter heaven as is indicated by the verse but rare and very hard.
Finally, the loophole comes in your inability to prove, in any demonstrable way, Jesus stated unequivocally, if one is wealthy they cannot go to heaven but must go to hell. Jesus was not sending people to hell on the basis of “status” but on the basis of their heart and conduct.
Metacom, this is similar to the interpretation I have been making and is in my opinion most likely the position Jesus was taking. Furthermore, it is the position best supported by the scriptures.
Now, don’t make ol’ Mel film a movie about the teachings of Jesus!
He just did one about the ‘action’ part of the story of Jesus.
You really don’t want one about the boring, sermon, helping, preaching, loving part do you? 'Cause that’s really hard to ‘spice up’.