Under God With Liberty

mesquite wrote:

I would say no difference, since the same two sentiments in the book of Mark both use kingdom of God.

23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly [with difficulty] shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Makes one wonder how George Bush translates that into tax cuts for the wealthy.

Are you saying that somehow you believe it is Bush's responsibility to tax the rich so as to reduce their wealth, thus somehow making it easier for them to go to heaven?

I thought you were all about SEPARATION of church and state. Apparently not.

Anyway the answer is in the quotation from Mark that you provided. It is difficult for those who TRUST IN their riches to go to heaven. It is not unspiritual to be either rich or poor. It is sinful to trust in your money no matter how much , or little , you have.

Better luck next time, Mesquite.

mesquite wrote:

I would say no difference, since the same two sentiments in the book of Mark both use kingdom of God.

23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly [with difficulty] shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Makes one wonder how George Bush translates that into tax cuts for the wealthy.

Are you saying that somehow you believe it is Bush's responsibility to tax the rich so as to reduce their wealth, thus somehow making it easier for them to go to heaven?

I thought you were all about SEPARATION of church and state. Apparently not.

Anyway the answer is in the quotation from Mark that you provided. It is difficult for those who TRUST IN their riches to go to heaven. It is not unspiritual to be either rich or poor. It is sinful to trust in your money no matter how much , or little , you have.

Better luck next time, Mesquite.

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

I would say no difference, since the same two sentiments in the book of Mark both use kingdom of God.

23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly [with difficulty] shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Makes one wonder how George Bush translates that into tax cuts for the wealthy.

Are you saying that somehow you believe it is Bush's responsibility to tax the rich so as to reduce their wealth, thus somehow making it easier for them to go to heaven?

I thought you were all about SEPARATION of church and state. Apparently not.

I am definitely for separation of church and state. I only made the comment to point out the hypocrisy because it is Bush that swathes himself in religion and attempts to blur the lines.

real life wrote:

Anyway the answer is in the quotation from Mark that you provided. It is difficult for those who TRUST IN their riches to go to heaven. It is not unspiritual to be either rich or poor. It is sinful to trust in your money no matter how much , or little , you have.

Better luck next time, Mesquite.

So you decide to pick out two words and decide that the entire thrust of the those verses hinge on TRUST? Let's try the same sentiments again, this time with Luke and a little more context.

Luke 18:22-27
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? ...
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
.24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved?
27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Essentially the same story in three different places, yet you try to turn the thrust of the story with the words "trust in" which only shows up in ONE of the three places, and even there, only in some of the translations. One of the great things about the Bible, if you do not like what it says in one place, look elsewhere, right? :wink:

The words you highlighted in bold were already in the Mark passage which you had only quoted partially, so the warning about trusting in riches is given in the same context. Maybe you should read more than snippets. Reading the whole passage might have helped you out here.

It's not just the words 'trust in' that are added. In the Mark passage, Jesus is seen to repeat the entire thought a second time, adding not only the words 'trust in' , but adding the whole sentence again to emphasize His point.

His statement is also consistent with the Biblical teaching elsewhere regarding those who trust in riches.

As for your comment about various English translations, do you know enough regarding the ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts of the New Testament to be able to discuss which manuscripts include the passage, which do not and why? Certain English translations tend to favor selected Greek and Latin manuscript variations. Do you know which ones and why? I doubt it, but perhaps you may be able to look it up now and learn something.

Sounds to me as though you hit the nail closer to its head than Life, Mesquite.

Verse 24 does indeed focus on the "trust in"....but verse 25 is rather direct. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. "

Sounds to me as though Jesus was saying that almost all rich men end up with their "trust in" their wealth...and therefore it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

real life wrote:

The words you highlighted in bold were already in the Mark passage which you had only quoted partially, so the warning about trusting in riches is given in the same context. Maybe you should read more than snippets. Reading the whole passage might have helped you out here.

Yep, the words I highlighted are also in the Matthew version of the account. In fact In fact on this episode Matthew, Mark , and Luke accounting are very similar. The main difference being the addition of the phrase "for those who trust in riches" in the Mark accounting, a phrase which you latched onto like a pit bull.

real life wrote:

It's not just the words 'trust in' that are added. In the Mark passage, Jesus is seen to repeat the entire thought a second time, adding not only the words 'trust in' , but adding the whole sentence again to emphasize His point.

He also added again "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

real life wrote:

His statement is also consistent with the Biblical teaching elsewhere regarding those who trust in riches.

It may or may not be. Without a reference it is just an unsubstantiated claim.

real life wrote:

As for your comment about various English translations, do you know enough regarding the ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts of the New Testament to be able to discuss which manuscripts include the passage, which do not and why? Certain English translations tend to favor selected Greek and Latin manuscript variations. Do you know which ones and why? I doubt it, but perhaps you may be able to look it up now and learn something.

I do not need to be an expert on ancient greek and Latin manuscripts. I merely mentioned the fact that some translations have the phrase and some do not. I also provided a link to Mark 10:24[/u] as it appears in ten different translations. Note that is some of the more recent translations that omit the phrase.

If you would like to add more than innuendo, feel free to do so. It makes little difference to me because the accounts were written so long after the fact that to quibble over translation accuracy of a couple of words is totally meaningless. Now if you had some manuscripts in Aramaic written during the time of Jesus, then the subject might be worth discussing.

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

When do you think that Mark was written, Mesquite?

Wouldn't God's word be protected by the holy spirit?

real life wrote:

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

Yes, I am aware of that. Aramaic is the language that was spoken in Jesus time and place.

The Greeks are well known for their writing about Gods, some of which are:
Titans
Gaea
Uranus
Cronus
Rhea
Oceanus
Tethys
Hyperion
Mnemosyne
Themis
Iapetus
Coeus
Crius
Phoebe
Thea
Prometheus
Epimetheus
Atlas
Metis

Olympians
Zeus
Poseidon
Hades
Hestia
Hera
Ares
Athena
Apollo
Aphrodite
Hermes
Artemis
Hephaestus

Lessor Gods
Demeter
Persephone
Dionysus
Eros
Hebe
Eris
Helios
Thanatos
Pan
Nemesis
The Graces
The Muses
The Erinnyes
The Fates

real life wrote:

When do you think that Mark was written, Mesquite?

If I were to guess based upon what I have read it would be somewhere between 70 A.D. and 180 A.D.. In any even certainly long enough after the time when the events described took place for any accuracy of quoting to be lost and for tales to grow in stature.

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

When do you think that Mark was written, Mesquite?

If I were to guess based upon what I have read it would be somewhere between 70 A.D. and 180 A.D.. In any even certainly long enough after the time when the events described took place for any accuracy of quoting to be lost and for tales to grow in stature.

Your guess doesn't seem to be supported by anything other than your opinion.

Mark, Gospel according to, 2d book of the New Testament. The shortest of the four Gospels and probably the earliest, it is usually thought to have been composed shortly before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Tradition claims St. Mark as the author and St. Peter as the eyewitness authority who supplied much of his information. Because much of the material in Mark is found in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, it is likely that Mark's Gospel was an important source for those later Gospels (see Synoptic Gospels).

The Gospel of Mark is the second in the familiar sequence of the New Testament Gospels, as they were established by Jerome and appear in many but not all early manuscripts of complete gospels, and as they are commonly printed. The commonly accepted range of dates for the text in its existing form are ca. a terminus set by the use of purely Markan material in the Gospel of Luke.

The text of the Gospel itself furnishes us with no clear information as to the time that it was written. Comments attributed to Jesus in Mark 13:1-2 (the "little Apocalypse", see below) have been seen as a reference to the destruction of the Temple, which would place the work after AD 70. Most scholars contrast these comments with the more specific ones in Luke and Matthew, and would be hesitant to assign a date later than 70-73 CE, the latter being when Jerusalem was finally and fully sacked. Nevertheless, a great majority of moderate and conservative scholars assign Mark a date between 65 and 70 CE, although there are vocal minority groups which argue for earlier or later dates.

real life wrote:

mesquite wrote:

real life wrote:

When do you think that Mark was written, Mesquite?

If I were to guess based upon what I have read it would be somewhere between 70 A.D. and 180 A.D.. In any even certainly long enough after the time when the events described took place for any accuracy of quoting to be lost and for tales to grow in stature.

Your guess doesn't seem to be supported by anything other than your opinion.

That was very helpful. Do you have any information other than faith that places the writing of Mark any closer to the time that events were alleged to have occurred?

Quote:

Mark, Gospel according to, 2d book of the New Testament. The shortest of the four Gospels and probably the earliest, it is usually thought to have been composed shortly before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Tradition claims St. Mark as the author and St. Peter as the eyewitness authority who supplied much of his information. Because much of the material in Mark is found in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, it is likely that Mark's Gospel was an important source for those later Gospels (see Synoptic Gospels).

Quote:

The Gospel of Mark is the second in the familiar sequence of the New Testament Gospels, as they were established by Jerome and appear in many but not all early manuscripts of complete gospels, and as they are commonly printed. The commonly accepted range of dates for the text in its existing form are ca. a terminus set by the use of purely Markan material in the Gospel of Luke.

Quote:

The text of the Gospel itself furnishes us with no clear information as to the time that it was written. Comments attributed to Jesus in Mark 13:1-2 (the "little Apocalypse", see below) have been seen as a reference to the destruction of the Temple, which would place the work after AD 70. Most scholars contrast these comments with the more specific ones in Luke and Matthew, and would be hesitant to assign a date later than 70-73 CE, the latter being when Jerusalem was finally and fully sacked. Nevertheless, a great majority of moderate and conservative scholars assign Mark a date between 65 and 70 CE, although there are vocal minority groups which argue for earlier or later dates.

http://www.answers.com/topic/gospel-of-mark

There are indications from portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls that may push the date of Mark's gospel to 50 AD or before.

Wouldn't God's word be protected by the holy spirit?

If there is a God...and if there is a Holy Spirit...

...I guess the god's word could be "protected" by the Holy Spirit...

...but I can think of no reason why it should be a necessity.

Unless the fairytale specifically states that it should be so.

But, of course, that would be self-serving and circular.

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:

Wouldn't God's word be protected by the holy spirit?

I agree with Thunder Runner. I believe God's word has been protected by the Holy Spirit.

Frank Apisa Wrote:

Quote:

If there is a God...and if there is a Holy Spirit...

...I guess the god's word could be "protected" by the Holy Spirit...

...but I can think of no reason why it should be a necessity.

Unless the fairytale specifically states that it should be so.

But, of course, that would be self-serving and circular.

You can't think of a reason for it's necessity, Frank? How about the fact that man can't seem to even agree that there is a God? If God's word had not been protected, I suspect the Bible would read much like a novel with a million sequels.

Frank,

You seem to want perfection in God, but you seem to want your description of perfection. God could have made any of us perfect. He could have made us all believe in Him and have no free will. But, because He does love us, He gave us that free will.

I don't understand why anyone would think that with all the unanswered questions there are concerning God that man would not have created a God perfect in man's eyes?

I do not know what you are talking about here????