Christian ideas - any answers welcome!

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi! I've always been a Christian but some teachings of the Bible have been confusing me, so if you are a Christian or know the Bible well could you help me on some of these? Here's my first one:
In all four (accepted) Gospels Jesus tells the good rich man that the one thing he needs to do is to give all his wealth to the poor and follow Jesus. Nuns and priests and other ordained people often deny earthly possessions, but most practising Christians have many 'luxuries' - some are very very rich! Is there a deeper meaning I've missed? Or are Christians just ignoring this coz they don't like it?

If you have any Bible questions please post them here too. I'll be back with more!

P.S.
Of course for this discussion we need to discuss the Bible teachings as if they were valid, whatever your belief, although on the other hand any references to other teachings and holy books is welcome!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,897 • Replies: 54

No top replies

seeker...i'm a christian too, and am sometimes confounded by the bible. I think though, that most stuff is pretty much up to interpretation. The Bible also says " Beloved, I wish above all that you would prosper, even as your soul prospers", It also says that God has given each of us a talent to gain wealth. Jesus, so I believe, did not walk around in raggedy clothing, the Bible says his garments were without seams. I take this to mean they were nice, for those times. I do not believe that we, as Christians, are supposed to be poor and pverty stricken, but I don't think we're supposed to be using the church (pastors and such, and bad bad church secretaries) as a means to get wealth....

I think that Jesus' conversations are full of parables, similies and metaphors, and that most of it is open to interpretation, as is the rest of the bible. ... That's about the best I can say.

0 Replies

I'll be back

0 Replies

The putative Jesus (Yeshuwah the Rabbi?) is reputed to have said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven." This saying has a particular meaning, which would have been known to his audience (assuming he existed and made the statement). There was a gate in the city wall of Jerusalem known as "the eye of the needle," which was very narrow and low. Camels could be brought in through this gate, and were, as it was not closed at night (being so small, it was easily guarded). However, it was necessary for their burdens to be unloaded, and for the camel to be brought to its knees, and then pulled through the gate. What such a parable says, actually, is that the rich must give up any attachment to wordly wealth (i.e., unloading the camel's "rich" burden), and to practice humility (forcing the camel to kneel), if they are to follow the path to heaven.

0 Replies

I learn something here every dang on day. I swear it.

0 Replies

onyxelle- I know. Isn't this place wonderful! Why do you think that I hang around here so much!

0 Replies

Urban legends apply even to camels and city gates.

http://www.angelfire.com/wy/Franklin4YAHWEH/camelthroughneedle.html

0 Replies

Note something here Frank, the language which i used: putative, reputed . . . these are the sorts of qualifying terms which you could do well to learn yourself . . .

0 Replies

Here's my take on this passage:
Jesus, knowing people's hearts, knew that the young man's wealth was more important to him than discipleship and was therefore a major obstacle to the man's ability to follow Him--He therefore asked the man to give up what was most important to him as a test/demonstration of his sincerity. As a parallel, consider the story of Abraham and Isaac in the OT--God asked Abraham to give up his greatest treasure, not because Isaac was evil, but because God wanted Abraham to demonstrate his devotion to Him.

0 Replies

Priests had many luxuries also. Until pope Pelagius II decided that, due to somew funding problems because of the thing with these constant invasions by people with titles like Garths, and Flambes, decidewd to set up some new rules that kids of new priests (see there was a Grandfather rule even then), well these kids couldnt inherit their pops property. Pelagius II was calling this 'Church Property" Its like if you worked for the government, when you die , the government doesnt get your money (well yes it does sort of). Pelagius II had this all worked out and then he died of the Plague.
Along comes Gregory !, he thought this was kind of too radical so he recinded Pelagius II's edicts.
Well Pope Benedict VIII was really pissed about 500 years later.
" EY wheresa alla da m oney shes goin?" he asked
Well Greg 7 banned marriage but then that was recinded by his successor Pope John
Coupla years later Pope Gregory 7 comes along and sez. "Ifa you a married, you canna no saya da mass"
All this time there were lots of priests who just thumbed their noses at the popes
1139Pope Innocenti II voided marriage and required new priests to get a divorce . that was when the papal edict finally stood up

In the subsequent centuries, however, this
edict was brought forth and re- discussed and re-voted on. Through strong lobbying by the vatican consiglieris, the new laws of celibacy for priests was firmly established .
However the sacred laws and Jesus own rationale governing celibacy followed shortly thereafter (like another 300 years or so). The papal historians had to hunt for just the perfect language to make it sound like it was Jesus plan all along.
Cynical, ? me?

The entire issue was so that the Church could retain all property upon a clerics death and build wealth . It was nothing to do with celibacy and poverty winning your place in a heaven.
Just like everything else its power politics aided by the loyalty of a glacially obstinate church beuracracy.

0 Replies

As an aside--my wife and I, both Christians, have at times struggled with the issue of "riches". We are not rich by American standards, but we certainly have more than most people in this world. So, at what point is it wrong for us to buy material goods for ourselves (new clothes, dinner out, etc.), knowing that the same money is desperately needed elsewhere?
(Our solution so far: ask ourselves, "Does the desired item interfere with our commitment to Christian service?" e.g., time spent together strengthens our relationship, so dinner out--in moderation--is O.K. On the other hand, that new flight sim I wanted only leads to wasted time on my part, so I should use that money more wisely.)
Thoughts?

0 Replies

lab rat- you spend way more time assessing the moral implications of stuff. My hats off to you for sticking to your code. I, on the other hand have to admit that we buy stuff just because it sounds cool.
"What would Jesus listen to?" I can say , has never ever crossed my mind.

I assess things more often on "Is what Im doing hurting or annoying anyone"? ( other than my cat)

0 Replies

Quote:

The putative Jesus (Yeshuwah the Rabbi?) is reputed to have said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven." This saying has a particular meaning, which would have been known to his audience (assuming he existed and made the statement). There was a gate in the city wall of Jerusalem known as "the eye of the needle," which was very narrow and low. Camels could be brought in through this gate, and were, as it was not closed at night (being so small, it was easily guarded).

The "putative" obviously referred to Jesus; the "reputed" referred to what Jesus supposedly said (assuming he existed!)

Your "explanation" that "this saying had a particular meaning which would have been known to his audience" was wrong. It was just flat out wrong. And it wasn't qualified.

You were talking as though you really knew what the statement would have meant -- but you were merely parroting a bunch of nonsense put out there by Christian charlatans who spread the story to justify the wealth they were accumulating.

I called the error to the attention of the participants. This particular bit of fluff has come up in dozens of threads on the Internet and I wanted to be sure the people participating in this thread discovered that it was phony.

I didn't try to rub you nose in your bullshit! I merely gave a link and noted that urban legends are nothing new.

Now you are trying to weasel out of what you said with nonsense about qualifiers.

Get off it!

And don't give me advice on what words I should and should not learn. You are not nearly bright enough to be giving that kind of instruction.

0 Replies

hmmm...

0 Replies

I wouldnt screw with Frank. Hes from New Jersey.

Sounds like you have to be very careful when youre in Jerusalem and you ask somebody for a hunk of rope.

0 Replies

Frank read the rest of the link you provided.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Frank read the rest of the link you provided.

What is your point, Craven?

0 Replies

It's a lot less absolute than your expression.

0 Replies

Frank I think you need to apologize for hijacking this topic with your bitterness.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
The putative Jesus (Yeshuwah the Rabbi?) is reputed to have said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven." This saying has a particular meaning, which would have been known to his audience (assuming he existed and made the statement). There was a gate in the city wall of Jerusalem known as "the eye of the needle," which was very narrow and low. Camels could be brought in through this gate, and were, as it was not closed at night (being so small, it was easily guarded).

The "putative" obviously referred to Jesus; the "reputed" referred to what Jesus supposedly said (assuming he existed!)

Your "explanation" that "this saying had a particular meaning which would have been known to his audience" was wrong. It was just flat out wrong. And it wasn't qualified.

You were talking as though you really knew what the statement would have meant -- but you were merely parroting a bunch of nonsense put out there by Christian charlatans who spread the story to justify the wealth they were accumulating.

I called the error to the attention of the participants. This particular bit of fluff has come up in dozens of threads on the Internet and I wanted to be sure the people participating in this thread discovered that it was phony.

I didn't try to rub you nose in your bullshit! I merely gave a link and noted that urban legends are nothing new.

Now you are trying to weasel out of what you said with nonsense about qualifiers.

Get off it!

And don't give me advice on what words I should and should not learn. You are not nearly bright enough to be giving that kind of instruction.

0 Replies

Well, Good morning all.

Setanta, I had heard that explanation about the "eye of the needle", and it really makes sense to me. Whatever the explanation, to me it a gentle reminder from Jesus that we need to take stock of our lives and arrange our priorities.

Seeker, the parable of the talents has always been a mystery to me, also, and seems almost in direction opposition to what Jesus told the rich young ruler.

Whatever our faith; Whatever our religion or lack of it, is an individual thing, and must be accepted as such.

0 Replies

Christian ideas - any answers welcome!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know