Can A Rich Man Enter the Kingdom of God?

[elguanteloko]

So if one has followers one is released from the need to be poor in order to be moral? My that is an interesting concept? Are you sure?

You are getting somewhat confused. 1) Being poor =/= being moral (or Christ pleasing). Giving what you have to the poor IS what Christ did and that's what his followers had to do. Being poor is a necessary factor for following Christ although not the only one. 2) His teaching was that his followers should do certain things, not that he should do them (although he did). Again, it was OK for expensive nard to be poured on his feet because he was going to die very soon and they were going to have a lot of time after to help the poor. Now Jesus is not here so we must give everything to the poor as he said. Clear?

[Vance]

According to Robert Millet, "Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said when he taught that 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 heaven. There is no metaphor intended. No softening of this hard saying by linguistic or cultural traditions is justifiable. The Savior said what he said. "Who then can be saved?" the apostles asked. "With men that trust in riches, it is impossible; but not impossible with men who trust in God and leave all for my sake, for with such all things are possible" (JST, Mark 10:22-26; compare JST, Matt. 19:26;JST Luke 18:27)."

The apostles found this doctrine quite difficult to accept. Do you guys accept it? Just curious.

Well, since he can't take it with him regardless, you could say that only the poor enter heaven.

[Deborah]

1) Being poor =/= being moral (or Christ pleasing). Giving what you have to the poor IS what Christ did and that's what his followers had to do. Being poor is a necessary factor for following Christ although not the only one.

Seriously? If that is the case why has the Lord blessed so many of his followers with wealth? Poverty is not a sign of morality nor of pleasing Christ. God wants his people to prosper. Again it isn't the status of wealth but one's attitude, whether rich or poor.

[Nathair/|\]

"Moral authority" is kind of misleading. What is not misleading is that if you are rich you are not a follower of Christ. Can you name me a rich person who you think is the camel that will pass through the eye of a needle? Will this person trust in God to feed him and take care of him while he gives everything to the poor and goes around preaching in His name?

Abraham? Brigham Young? Lehi?

[Doctor Steuss]

Well, since he can't take it with him regardless, you could say that only the poor enter heaven.

Lol

[CA Steve]

Seriously? If that is the case why has the Lord blessed so many of his followers with wealth? Poverty is not a sign of morality nor of pleasing Christ. God wants his people to prosper. Again it isn't the status of wealth but one's attitude, whether rich or poor.

Are you sure wealth is a blessing?

[Ahab]

Seriously? If that is the case why has the Lord blessed so many of his followers with wealth?

So they can give it to those who are poor.

Poverty is not a sign of morality nor of pleasing Christ. God wants his people to prosper. Again it isn't the status of wealth but one's attitude, whether rich or poor.

When you get some money, the best thing to do is get rid of it, rather than holding onto it as if you're trying to see how much you can collect over a life time.

Money that is sitting in a bank account isn't doing the person who has it any good at all, and the only thing money is good for is to trade it for something else.

Remember, to hate something basically = to get rid of it, or to at least try, and the hatred I have for any money I get inspires me to get rid of it ASAP.

[Deborah]

Are you sure wealth is a blessing?

And why is poverty a blessing? One may be more humble but he may also be lazier and more ungrateful. It's not the poverty or wealth but the attitude. Wealth in and of itself is neither a curse or a blessing.

[Ahab]

Wealth in and of itself is neither a curse or a blessing.

That's why the Lord said, through Paul to Timothy, that the "love" of money is the root of all evil, rather than saying "money" (or wealth) is the root of all evil.

When a person "loves" money, they want to nurture the money, itself, while treating it as if it's something precious and dear and valuable, in and of itself.

It's not, though.

In itself, money is totally worthless, except maybe when using the paper variety to start a fire or the gold variety to conduct electricity.

The best thing money, itself, is good for is for use in trade for something else, which is why it is good to get rid of it, or, in other words, to hate it.

[elguanteloko]

Abraham? Brigham Young? Lehi?

All rich. Therefore, none of them a followers of Christ. Oh, wait... some of them said they were following Christ? Then they must have, right? If they said it and they come out of your sacred books as good people, then everything must be congruent and no contradiction can be accepted.

[Vance]

Lol

I am glad I entertained you.

Just a very small payback for the many smiles your posts have given me.

[CA Steve]

And why is poverty a blessing? One may be more humble but he may also be lazier and more ungrateful. It's not the poverty or wealth but the attitude. Wealth in and of itself is neither a curse or a blessing.

I did not claim poverty was a blessing. Perhaps I misunderstood your question when you asked why the Lord has blessed so many of his followers with wealth. I inferred that meant they were 'blessed with wealth".

[Deborah]

Here is how it should work; individuals helping others, not governments. Would this man be able to do such service if he didn't have the means to give?

true charity

[Deborah]

I inferred that meant they were 'blessed with wealth".

And they are. God wants to bless all his children with wealth. That doesn't mean everyone will attain it. Why on earth would he want them to be poor? There seems to be an attitude that it is a greater blessing to be poor and that somehow that should be man's natural state. In a true consecrated society there are no rich or poor. But there is prosperity, for all.

[Jeff K.]

Wow. Don't you think that's a stretch? I hope this is intended to be a joke.

Jesus didn't "own" it - it was applied to his person. Such desperate rhetorical stretching tells me that you have no argument and no defense.

It's a sad day when people like you who disagree with the plain teachings of Christ (and who presumably subscribe to some twisted version of the modern "prosperity gospels") accuse those who believe Christ of being in league with Judas.

Lets explore this....

Did he own a fine cloak? Why yes. Now to someone who isn't fully aware of the historical significance of fine cloting in the pre industrial age, it seems a rather small thing. And so in their ignorance they believe that owning such a cloak does not reflect a significant increase in wealth. And yet, in ages when one change of clothing in an entire life is what the vast majority had in those times, it becomes significant. So what you call a joke is more likely a reflection of your own ignorance on the matter, which is itself amusing.

Jesus didn't "own" it - it was applied to his person. Such desperate rhetorical stretching tells me that you have no argument and no defense.

CFR it wasn't controlled by Him, or given to His organization. You see, you complain that if you are rich you are already morally inferior in some way. This is a projection of covetousness, not the true light of Christ. Christ had access to things that made his life significantly better off than those he administered to. In effect, He was richer. Your line of reasoning would make Christ morally indferior to those he adminsitered to. I find that a somewhat repugnant view and reject it, just as I reject the logic of Judas Iscariot, which is also implied in your unknowing criticism of Christ.

It's a sad day when people like you who disagree with the plain teachings of Christ (and who presumably subscribe to some twisted version of the modern "prosperity gospels") accuse those who believe Christ of being in league with Judas.

No, the sadness comes when people ignorant of history make sweeping generalizations and engage in class warfare while rejecting what Christ was really all about, and perhaps using the sin of covetousness in order to justify their own anger at others. But I and others forgive you your lack of knowledge on the matter and your unknowing slight against Christ because he wasn't as poor as those he ministered to help. You simply weren't aware.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 10 December 2010 - 12:26 PM, said:

Jesus was significantly richer than many of the poor around him, therefore was he condemnd because he did not give of his personal property (ie his cloak) was Judas right to condemn the spikenard of oil put upon the feet of Christ by Mary?

Of course not. It is amazing how people compartmentalize the scriptures without looking at the full and correct context within the life of Christ. Poverty does NOT create moral authority, righteousness in the form of Christ's love does. In that sense the amount of money one has has nothing to do with their moral authority.

Some may wish to condemn Christ for not giving of his substance, cloaks, oil, perfume and so on.... Using the logic some claim to use, you would be forced to, or call Christ Himself a hypocrite. I prefer to understand the correct context in the matter and see how Christ's stance was more in tune with the condemnation of desiring things of the world, not dividing moral superiority by economic standards. Silly me.

He gave the reason, though. It wasn't wrong for Mary to put oil upon his feet because he wasn't going to be there for much longer but we are going to have the poor for a while. Now that we don't have Christ with us and many poor among us... you get the point.

Swing and a miss of the point completely. We know what the oil was for. What you seem to miss is the line of reasoning used by some here, that almost exactly follows what Judas Isacariot presented. "The riches of the oil should be used for the poor". In effect stating that it is being wasted.

Christ's point is that the oil is not being wasted, in other words the poverty of others does not mean the more affluent of some must automatically be presumed to be "wasted'. In fact quite the opposite. Christ rejected the idea that wealth made one morally superior or morally inferior. His point was in regard to what the "asset" was used for. How it was being applied and the heart of the person that had it.

The pursuit and acceptance of Judas Iscariot and his logic of covetousness reflects a certain blindspot in those who believe exclusively in the material world. Such is a rejection of the light of Christ, and an acceptance of Judas Iscariot's darker and more self involved view in judging others.

[Jeff K.]

Poverty is a great teacher, it makes us appreciate the blessings the Lord has given us. I know this because I have known poverty.

To reject God's blessings both spiritual and material that we have received because a few hard hearted individuals choose to misread the scriptures and toss their own judgement in, is to reject God's blessings in our lives.

The real question that some of these misguided people should ask themselves is not:

"Can a rich man enter the kingdom of God?" But what do men with any affluence do with their riches to enter the kingdom of God.

[LeSellers]

"Can a rich man enter the kingdom of God?" But what do men with any affluence do with their riches to enter the kingdom of God.

I can't imagine the Bible without the parable of the Good Samaritan. I assume most everyone would agree that, were he a real person, he'd be in the Kingdom of God.

Margaret Thatcher reminds us, "No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions - he had money, too."

Lehi

[David Bokovoy]

Lets explore this....

Did he own a fine cloak? Why yes. Now to someone who isn't fully aware of the historical significance of fine cloting in the pre industrial age, it seems a rather small thing. And so in their ignorance they believe that owning such a cloak does not reflect a significant increase in wealth. And yet, in ages when one change of clothing in an entire life is what the vast majority had in those times, it becomes significant. So what you call a joke is more likely a reflection of your own ignorance on the matter, which is itself amusing.

CFR it wasn't controlled by Him, or given to His organization. You see, you complain that if you are rich you are already morally inferior in some way. This is a projection of covetousness, not the true light of Christ. Christ had access to things that made his life significantly better off than those he administered to. In effect, He was richer. Your line of reasoning would make Christ morally indferior to those he adminsitered to. I find that a somewhat repugnant view and reject it, just as I reject the logic of Judas Iscariot, which is also implied in your unknowing criticism of Christ.

No, the sadness comes when people ignorant of history make sweeping generalizations and engage in class warfare while rejecting what Christ was really all about, and perhaps using the sin of covetousness in order to justify their own anger at others. But I and others forgive you your lack of knowledge on the matter and your unknowing slight against Christ because he wasn't as poor as those he ministered to help. You simply weren't aware.

Actually, I believe the NT strongly suggest that Jesus was a wealthy man who gave everything he possessed to the poor. Note, for instance, Paul's statement in 2 Cor. 8:9: "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." Considerable evidence exists supporting the view that Paul used Jesus' example of consecrating all of his wealth to the Christian community.

As biblical scholar George Buchanan explained in a very important article,

[Bernard Gui]

There is an amusingly violent debate about the poverty of Christ between the Franciscan and Dominican monks in Umberto Eco's novel

The Name of the Rose, pp 340-348. Franciscans: "Wherefore Christ and his disciples did not hold these things in possession but

in use, their absolute poverty remaining intact." Dominicans: "...as God [Jesus] was owner of all earthly goods, and as God he received from the Father

universal control over everything...if he was poor, it was not because he had no property, but because he did not receive its fruits..."

And according to the wise monk William, "you can affirm both positions and you will never be able to establish on the basis the

Gospels whether, and to what extent, Christ considered as his property the tunic he wore, which he then perhaps threw away when

it was worn out...but the question is not whether Christ was poor: it is whether the church must be poor."

Good luck with this one.

Bernard

[rodheadlee]

It's all relative. The people here in Am Samoa thought we were rich becasue we live on a sailboat and cruise the world. In our reality we are poor and settle for living in a 10x20 box with few possessions to be able to travel. Many locals have come to know us and their opinions have changed.

It's not how much money you have, it's what you do with it that counts. When I do work at making money (we work every day on the boat)I appreciate working for honest wealthy people that pay a fair wage and don't beat me up on the price to get their work done. I also will cut a break to a struggling family trying to keep their house in shape or expand their living quarters for a new member of the.

Was BY rich? I don't know but I'd work for that guy any day.

[Jeff K.]

Actually, I believe the NT strongly suggest that Jesus was a wealthy man who gave everything he possessed to the poor. Note, for instance, Paul's statement in 2 Cor. 8:9: "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." Considerable evidence exists supporting the view that Paul used Jesus' example of consecrating all of his wealth to the Christian community.

As biblical scholar George Buchanan explained in a very important article,

[elguanteloko]

Swing and a miss of the point completely. We know what the oil was for. What you seem to miss is the line of reasoning used by some here, that almost exactly follows what Judas Isacariot presented. "The riches of the oil should be used for the poor". In effect stating that it is being wasted.

Not only was that Judas Iscariot's point but also Christ's. Jesus said it SHOULD be used for the poor EXCEPT in that occassion since he was going to die very soon. It wasn't a waste of oil because it was to Jesus and he said that AFTER he left then should these things be given to the poor.

Christ's point is that the oil is not being wasted, in other words the poverty of others does not mean the more affluent of some must automatically be presumed to be "wasted'.

Oh, brother. You seem to not read the Bible very often. We are asking the question Judas asked. This is what Jesus responded: "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial." Are the rich today going to bury Christ, Jeff? No, you say? Well, then this response by Christ applies to them: "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." (NIV) Do we have Christ with us here, Jeff? No. But we always have the poor among us. So, if Christ is here on earth today then we could be justified in keeping the oil but since he left, he clearly indicates it should be given to the poor.

In fact quite the opposite. Christ rejected the idea that wealth made one morally superior or morally inferior.

And I reject that too. This is an absurd strawman of my position. Read my posts again.

His point was in regard to what the "asset" was used for. How it was being applied and the heart of the person that had it.

Read above.

The pursuit and acceptance of Judas Iscariot and his logic of covetousness reflects a certain blindspot in those who believe exclusively in the material world. Such is a rejection of the light of Christ, and an acceptance of Judas Iscariot's darker and more self involved view in judging others.

Judas judged others because he wanted money. He judged Mary for the oil because he wanted money; that simple. Christ quite clearly said that on that occassion it was permited because he was soon to depart from among them, clearly making an exception to a rule.

[Jeff K.]

Not only was that Judas Iscariot's point but also Christ's. Jesus said it SHOULD be used for the poor EXCEPT in that occassion since he was going to die very soon. It wasn't a waste of oil because it was to Jesus and he said that AFTER he left then should these things be given to the poor.

Wrong, Christ rebuked the point you and Judas Iscariot made. So no, it was not Christ's point. I suggest you reread the scripture. I find your view to be somewhat narrow and self serving. Christ as has been established was nto poorer than anyone else. Nor is Heavenly Father a respecter of persons. Christ was not given special seperate dispensation to be "rich" or better off because He was the son of God. Rather Christ lived exactly as all men did without "exceptions". What one has or doesn't have was never given as an issue. Rather the use of what man has or doesn't have. Christ was not less moral than the poor because he was better off. Christ was not given exemption from the views of Heavenly Father since Heavenly Father was not a respecter of persons.

I see your argument to be one of exceptionalism, one of special favors, and you twist the logic in order to make Christ agree with Judas even as he rebuked him. That is insane.

Quote

Christ's point is that the oil is not being wasted, in other words the poverty of others does not mean the more affluent of some must automatically be presumed to be "wasted'.

Oh, brother. You seem to not read the Bible very often. We are asking the question Judas asked. This is what Jesus responded: "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial." Are the rich today going to bury Christ, Jeff? No, you say? Well, then this response by Christ applies to them: "You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me." (NIV) Do we have Christ with us here, Jeff? No. But we always have the poor among us. So, if Christ is here on earth today then we could be justified in keeping the oil but since he left, he clearly indicates it should be given to the poor.

I read the bible, and from what I have seen, you don't seem to, its cloiser to you reading political dialogue and you try to make the bible fit your politics. You subsume Christ to you political agenda because he is an implement of justification rather than seeking truth. It is not the correct way to understand doctrine, a doctrine you seem to miss completely.

Unlike you, I do have Christ with me. You may consider your words a bit more carefully in the future. Christs rebuke rejected your notion of a proletarian redistribution. Indeed his rebuke of Judas established that what assets were used for was the deciding factor and that poverty endowed no one with a greater moral standing. Poverty has never made people more moral, anymore than wealth is a sin. Well, in the eyes of the covetous, wealth is a sin. And poverty (in the eyes of the person judging himself to be poor) is a righteous virtue. To me the stance is hypocritical.

Quote

In fact quite the opposite. Christ rejected the idea that wealth made one morally superior or morally inferior.

And I reject that too. This is an absurd strawman of my position. Read my posts again.

YOu do not reject it, or rather you are so caught up in your political ad hom, that you cannot see your support is entirely for Judas, as rebuked by Christ. And the rich and indeed go to heaven, even as you rail against the idea.

Quote

The pursuit and acceptance of Judas Iscariot and his logic of covetousness reflects a certain blindspot in those who believe exclusively in the material world. Such is a rejection of the light of Christ, and an acceptance of Judas Iscariot's darker and more self involved view in judging others.

Judas judged others because he wanted money. He judged Mary for the oil because he wanted money; that simple. Christ quite clearly said that on that occassion it was permited because he was soon to depart from among them, clearly making an exception to a rule.

Judas wanted the money to help the poor. And so judged Mary and others because he wanted the money used in a way he thought was better. It is the same argument you are using. It is the same logic you are using. Judas subsumed doctrine to what he wanted. You reflect the very same argument, and yes, it is that simple. You can try to twist it to meet your political end, but the truth will out.

You claim exception to the rule. Christ did not live by exception to the rule, that is part of what made him Christ.

[elguanteloko]

Wrong, Christ rebuked the point you and Judas Iscariot made. So no, it was not Christ's point. I suggest you reread the scripture. I find your view to be somewhat narrow and self serving. Christ as has been established was nto poorer than anyone else. Nor is Heavenly Father a respecter of persons. Christ was not given special seperate dispensation to be "rich" or better off because He was the son of God. Rather Christ lived exactly as all men did without "exceptions". What one has or doesn't have was never given as an issue. Rather the use of what man has or doesn't have. Christ was not less moral than the poor because he was better off. Christ was not given exemption from the views of Heavenly Father since Heavenly Father was not a respecter of persons.

I see your argument to be one of exceptionalism, one of special favors, and you twist the logic in order to make Christ agree with Judas even as he rebuked him. That is insane.

Let me get this, Jeff. I offer scriptural evidence that seems rather clear... and you just keep repeating your position without making an argument. I suppose you don't want to be taken seriously.

I read the bible, and from what I have seen, you don't seem to, its cloiser to you reading political dialogue and you try to make the bible fit your politics. You subsume Christ to you political agenda because he is an implement of justification rather than seeking truth. It is not the correct way to understand doctrine, a doctrine you seem to miss completely.

LOL Now its about my political agenda? kind of sad to see you go this way, Jeff. FYI, I'm not a follower of Christ, I think Christ was quite insane (or just poorly interpreted), and Christ's views are completely apolitical in this part to begin with. Saying YOU should give to the poor does not mean 1) you should tax others to give to the poor, 2) we should have no government, 3) we should have a small government, 4) we should have a big government, or any combination of these. Sharpen those critical thinking skills, Jeff.

Unlike you, I do have Christ with me. You may consider your words a bit more carefully in the future. Christs rebuke rejected your notion of a proletarian redistribution.

See above.

Indeed his rebuke of Judas established that what assets were used for was the deciding factor and that poverty endowed no one with a greater moral standing. Poverty has never made people more moral, anymore than wealth is a sin. Well, in the eyes of the covetous, wealth is a sin. And poverty (in the eyes of the person judging himself to be poor) is a righteous virtue. To me the stance is hypocritical.

Again, bro, this isn't my position and you repeating it as if it were is plain wrong.

YOu do not reject it, or rather you are so caught up in your political ad hom, that you cannot see your support is entirely for Judas, as rebuked by Christ. And the rich and indeed go to heaven, even as you rail against the idea.

I'm clearly blinded, then, and you know my position better than I do myself (sarcasm).... get real, Jeff.

Judas wanted the money to help the poor. And so judged Mary and others because he wanted the money used in a way he thought was better.

You seriously need to read the Bible, bro. John 12: 6 "He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief" It says clearly that he criticized Mary because he wanted the money. Got it? He didn't care for the poor, he cared for himself.

It is the same argument you are using. It is the same logic you are using. Judas subsumed doctrine to what he wanted. You reflect the very same argument, and yes, it is that simple. You can try to twist it to meet your political end, but the truth will out.

You claim exception to the rule. Christ did not live by exception to the rule, that is part of what made him Christ.

In a sense Christ was making an exception to the rule (since Christ was to be treated differently, obviously) but at the same time he was stating a rule (treat him differently than to others). There isn't anything wrong with this and this doesn't make Christ a hypocrite.