I remember reading something once that argued that “camel” was likely a mistranslation of the actual statement and that Jesus was referring to the thick ropes used to tie up boats. (And that the words for camel and rope are very similar in Aramaic and it was mixed up in the written Greek). It doesn’t change the meaning (putting a big thick rope through the eye of a sewing needle would be difficult/impossible), but it makes more sense to me as an analogy (and, presumably, would have been readily understood by the listener, especially with all the fishermen).
There’s a Staff Report that addresses this.
That’s interesting. Although, I don’t think that the argument is the similarity between rope and camel in the Greek. It’s that the words in Aramaic are very similar. (I don’t know if this is true). And that the error occurred during the oral history stage. I suppose the argument about “oddest translation wins” would apply there as well.
After many years of being active in my church (deacon, chairman of the board of trustees, Sunday school teacher, etc.), I became an atheist. Reasons? Two main ones: theodicy and the emphasis on the theology of prosperity.
One additional consideration was the emphasis placed on “missionary tourism,” where “missionaries” go to some South American country for a week, get a tour, talk to the kids with unmentionable diseases and conditions, and carry some two-by-fours for a morning in order to build a chapel and spread the Gospel. The cost of getting the church members there and back would have bought a generator for a small village (with fuel for a year), set up a small business, or contributed greatly to getting the villagers clean water. (You want to help a village? Install a reliable water system for clean drinking water and pay enough every year to have it maintained.) That $800 round-trip ticket to Guatemala is not needed.
Where’s the faith when a minister needs an increase in pay because his daughter is getting ready to go to college?
OK, I’m being a jerk. I understand that missions work personalizes the experience so more church members will contribute. But that certainly conflicts with the whole idea of faith and faith-based work. Let’s just call it hypocrisy and be done with it.
“I’m not angry…” (Elvis Costello)
Theodicy’s a separate issue, and probably outside the scope of this thread; but why would an emphasis on prosperity theology cause you to reject God altogether rather than rejecting that particular church?
Good point. You’ll notice I mentioned theodicy but didn’t expound on it.
My best answer to you would probably be that I define “prosperity theology” pretty widely. My in-laws, for example, are very active members of a Baptist church. They also own and drive three big ($40K+) cars and trucks. They tithe, which I admire them for, but they don’t see any conflict between their lifestyle/spending and the Gospel message.
I can, and have, had lots of discussions with clergy and laypeople about my view of this. Does their spending create jobs? Sure. Should family and local church come first? Maybe. Will the poor be with us always? I think so. But I truly don’t believe that JC ever said, “Hey! And make sure you put aside an extra $400-$500K for your adult kids, even if they are fully employed and doing just fine on their own. And make sure to take the whole family out for $800 birthday dinners every month or so.”
Another verse they use is your reap what you sow. Usually they don’t tell you that it does not mean sow money into them to reap it, but strongly hint that is exactly what you should do, but they know that is not how it works.
Allow me to approach the subject of prosperity theology from a different direction.
What happens if we define all economic activity and growth as being “good?” You know, building a big business creates lots of jobs needed by others, investment in financial instruments is necessary to provide for retirees, working your way up through a company is using your God-given talents to their full potential, being able to spend money on yourself and your family is a basic economic stimulus, and so forth. This is all at the foundation of prosperity theology. But it doesn’t sound very Christian to me when I write it out. The Gospels are fundamentally eschatological in tone, and I don’t see much of that in what I just wrote.
the idea isn’t new because as a child in sunday school we were taught that god wanted you to b successful but not greedy or brag about it
all you needed was just enough for you to share with those that didn’t have any
This part seems to have been lost.
The Lord works in confirmationally-biased ways.
You said it very well.
I’m retired now, but I can state with confidence that I can count on one hand the number of (financially) successful businesspeople who I consider to be examples of good Christians. I’m not trying to be judgmental, I’m simply being honest about my opinions.
Want to impress me? Take half of your $200K/year and spend it to send deserving young people to college. Anonymously. Don’t claim it as a deduction. Then don’t tell anyone about it. (Hmmm…guess that’s self-contradictory. OK, you can tell ME.)
Them that’s got shall have
Them that’s not shall lose
So the Bible says and it still is news
-Billie Holliday
FYI, from the standpoint of pretty much every mainline established Christian denomination, the Prosperity Gospel stuff is rank heresy.
And skip the whole parable before it, which is about putting whatever you happen to have to good use. The three servants had different amounts of talents to work with; the lord wasn’t expecting the one who’d been given less to produce more than the one given most. But he’d expected every servant to produce something: the one who was punished was the improductive one, the one who had not used his talent.
-
Everyone feels like the protagonist. So “I’m not one of those awful, greedy rich guys; I’m a job creator. And don’t listen to all that nonsense about questionable business practices, I stand by everything I’ve done”.
-
Rich and poor are relative anyway. Most Christians in developed countries sleep fine at night because they don’t feel rich vs people around them, and the same is true of most millionaires.
Nevertheless I think most Christians would consider the idea that wealth is explicitly virtuous as opposed to merely neutral, to be perverse.
It’s the beginnings of Conservative Ideology rotting Religion from the inside out.
Luke cuts out that whole “in spirit” part, and just flat out says (Luke 6:20-26)
Perhaps the difference is in motivation.
Being successful in business because it is your vocation, and therefore you do your best because it is your ministry, is one thing. Serving God because you expect Him to make you rich is another.
See also Luke 12:48.
Regards,
Shodan
And if they wanted to just create a whole new religion based around these principles, that would be fine (at least in theory), as well as being much more honest. It’s when they try to act like this is supported by the Bible and Jesus that they fall off the rails. They’re trying to co-opt the existing base of Christian believers, rather than honestly starting a new cult.