Matthew 19 - Jesus Teaches The Young Man

[volgadon]

You are incorrect in leaving the blank -- blank. It should be filled in with "wealth" or "riches".

If anything, the JST does a better job of showing the larger principle illustrated by this particular story. It shifts away the focus from riches themselves to "trust in riches," contrasting it with "turst in God." In other words, it is not riches which are the problem. The problem is when they get your loyalty.

Riches were definitely among the top issues faced by the communalist attitude of the early Christians. The bigger issue nonetheless was the lack of faith in God. This is behind the expression "ye of little faith."

[CASteinman]

If anything, the JST does a better job of showing the larger principle illustrated by this particular story. It shifts away the focus from riches themselves to "trust in riches," contrasting it with "turst in God." In other words, it is not riches....."

It is more vague in Matthew, but it is quite clear in Mark.

It is also the repeated word of other Prophets and Apostles.

[selek1]

You are incorrect in leaving the blank -- blank. It should be filled in with "wealth" or "riches".

In your opinion. Others are not obligated to genuflect simply because you say so.

As has already been pointed out, it was not "riches" themselves that were the problem, but the act of placing one's trust in them instead of on the Lord.

Contrary to your assertion, the scripture in Mark is not "more clear" in support of your position.

If anything, it is more specific that it is not wealth per se that is the problem, but the act of relying upon wealth instead of upon the Lord.

Mark 10: 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 ^atrust in ^briches to enter into the kingdom of God!

It was not the physical possession (wealth) that was the problem- it was the act of elevating those possessions to the status of an idol.

The citations you've offered thus far do not support your stated interpretation of Scripture.

Edited May 23, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

In your opinion.

Incorrect if by that you mean my sole opinion. In the opinions of many Apostles and Prophets.

[CASteinman]

Others are not obligated to genuflect simply because you say so.

There is no reason to get snippy and rude. And there is good reason to not do so. Have you considered actually reading my posts?

[selek1]

In the opinions of many Apostles and Prophets.

An assertion you have demonstrably failed to prove.

None of (few) sources you have cited have demonstrated that wealth or riches are the problem in and of themselves.

In every instance you've cited, the problem has been an undue emphasis or desire for wealth.

Your argument (as such) is a logical fallacy- one that is fairly common today.

Jesse James is reported to have used a six-gun to murder at least a dozen men. (He was directly involved or responsible for nearly two hundred more).

According to your logic, it was the gun- not James- who caused those deaths.

Edited May 23, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

There is no reason to get snippy and rude.

I quite agree- though I am also foolish enough to consider unsupported appeals to authority to be "rude".

Have you considered actually reading my posts?

What was that about "rude and snippy"?

In point of fact, I have read all of your posts in this thread quite carefully.

I've also troubled to read for myself the sources and citations (such as they are) that you've linked.

And as I noted above, they do not (as written) support your contention.

Edited May 23, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Contrary to your assertion, the scripture in Mark is not "more clear" in support of your position.

Really. Lets take a look.

Here is Matthew:

JST Matt. 19:26 But Jesus beheld their thoughts, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but if they will forsake all things for my sake, with God whatsoever things I speak are possible

And now, here is Mark:

JST Mark 10:26 … 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 these things are possible.

If you will notice, Matthew 19:26 does not (that verse alone) show the the issue is necessarily "riches". It might be other things. Of course, for it to be other things is a stretch because the whole passage is about riches. But I was pointing out the specific changes made by Joseph Smith.

Now, if you look at Mark, you will see that it DOES specifically mention "Riches" as the key issue.

How can it be then, that the JST in Mark does not support my point more clearly than the one in Matthew? I think actually using the word that I claimed vs not using it is much clearer.

[CASteinman]

It was not the physical possession (wealth) that was the problem- it was the act of elevating those possessions to the status of an idol.

And yet the word "idol" never appears in ANY of the versions.

For someone so persnickety you sure are eager to make unsupported interpretations.

[CASteinman]

The citations you've offered thus far do not support your stated interpretation of Scripture.

Did you bother to read my response to you earlier? I operated in good faith, and came back and answered you. I offered several alternatives. You haven't told me what you expect.

[CASteinman]

I quite agree- though I am also foolish enough to consider unsupported appeals to authority to be "rude".

What was that about "rude and snippy"?

I consider it exceptionally rude to accuse me of not providing support when I offered to do so and asked you how you wanted it presented. In return, you ignore that request and simply assert that I did not give it.

That is very rude and unbecoming. It is a lack of good faith effort to hold a reasonable conversation.

[CASteinman]

In point of fact, I have read all of your posts in this thread quite carefully.

Then you are intentionally ignoring what I have said in post #48.

Edited May 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[selek1]

Really. Lets take a look.

Here is Matthew:

JST Matt. 19:26 But Jesus beheld their thoughts, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but if they will forsake ALL THINGS for my sake, with God whatsoever things I speak are possible

Emphasis Mine. The Savior did not say "wealth". He said "all things".

And now, here is Mark:

JST Mark 10:26 … 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 these things are possible.

The key phrase here is "men that trust in riches". It does not say "wealthy men" or "men who have riches". It says "men that trust in riches".

This verse is quite clear that it is not wealth that is the problem, but placing one's trust in wealth.

If you will notice, Matthew 19:26 does not (that verse alone) show the the issue is necessarily "riches". It might be other things.

Actually- the verses are clear that it is not "riches" that are the problem at all.

It is the unhealthy focus upon and trust in them- the divided loyalty- that is the problem.

Now, if you look at Mark, you will see that it DOES specifically mention "Riches" as the key issue.

False, as demonstrated above.

How can it be then, that the JST in Mark does not support my point more clearly than the one in Matthew?

Because it explicitly contradicts your claim. Edited May 23, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

Because it explicitly contradicts your claim.

Can't possibly. Because my claim was that the focus of the passage was Riches vs "any thing of the world".

You are attempting to use strawman by changing the nature of my comments into something else. Which is also sort of rude as well.

Look at post 33. You will see my claim. The claim I am supporting. You will see that your representation of my position has been wrong.

Edited May 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[volgadon]

He preferred the comforts of earth to the treasures of heaven. He would not purchase the things of eternity by abandoning those of time.

<a href="http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/06/finishers-wanted?lang=eng&query="if+thou+wilt+be+perfect">http://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/06/finishers-wanted?lang=eng&query="if+thou+wilt+be+perfect"

Nets come in many sizes and shapes. The nets that Peter, Andrew, James, and John left were tangible objects—tools that helped them earn a living.

We sometimes think of these four men as modest fishermen who did not sacrifice much when they left their nets to follow the Savior. To the contrary, as Elder James E. Talmage, in Jesus the Christ, points out, Peter, Andrew, James, and John were partners in a prosperous business. They “owned their boats and gave employment to other men.” According to Elder Talmage, Simon Peter “was well to do in a material way; and when he once spoke of having left all to follow Jesus, the Lord did not deny that Peter’s sacrifice of temporal possessions was … great.”²

Later, the net of wealth entrapped a rich young man who claimed that he had obeyed all the commandments from his youth. When he asked the Savior what else he should do to have eternal life, the Master said, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” When the young man heard that, “he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.”³

Nets are generally defined as devices for capturing something. In a more narrow but more important sense, we might define a net as anything that entices or prevents us from following the call of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God.

Nets in this context can be our work, our hobbies, our pleasures, and, above all else, our temptations and sins. In short, a net can be anything that pulls us away from our relationship with our Heavenly Father or from His restored Church.

<a href="http://www.lds.org/liahona/2002/07/follow-me?lang=eng&query="if+thou+wilt+be+perfect">http://www.lds.org/liahona/2002/07/follow-me?lang=eng&query="if+thou+wilt+be+perfect"

[selek1]

I consider it exceptionally rude to accuse me of not providing support when I offered to do so and asked you how you wanted it presented. In return, you ignore that request and simply assert that I did not give it.

Point of fact: the only citations you have offered in support of your argument have been Matthew 19:26 and Mark 10:26.

All of the rest (thus far) are merely unfulfilled promises.

I say that you have not provided support because you have not.

That isn't an attack- it's a simple and incontrovertible fact.

Neither of the verses you cite actually support your claim.

Why then, should I believe that sources you have yet to cite will be any different?

Can you cite a single instance in which a prophet of the Lord has said that wealth itself is the problem?

The verses you've offered thus far fail that test.

[CASteinman]

Point of fact: the only citations you have offered in support of your argument have been Matthew 19:26 and Mark 10:26.

That is false. I have offered many more and asked you how you wanted them.

And now, after bringing this to your attention 2 times, you still ignore that request all for the purpose of claiming that I have not offered anything else.

Edited May 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[selek1]

Can't possibly. Because my claim was that the focus of the passage was Riches vs "any thing of the world".

Yes- that was your claim.

But the verse you cited specifies "men that trust in riches" rather than "riches" themselves.

The problem lies not in the riches, but in the men.

That is false. I have offered many more and asked you how you wanted them.

Mea culpa.

You have indeed offered several other citations. My point- however poorly worded- was that you have only provided two.

Unfortunately, "offered" can mean either "promised" or "delivered". It was in the latter sense that I was using the word, while you obviously meant the former.

Edited May 23, 2012 by selek1

[CASteinman]

All of the rest (thus far) are merely unfulfilled promises.

Here is my complaint:

1. You misrepresent my position. I have told you what my position was as expressed in post #33. It was in reference and in the context of post #32 I think. You ignore that and continue with a strawman version of my position.

2. I offer (and I think I was being pretty open and reasonable) to give you references and ask you how you want them. (#48) You ignore this, never explain how you want the references and instead of working with me on that, spend several posts castigating me.. when I have tried to be cooperative.

And in both cases, these are not accidents. You have been clear that you read all of my posts very carefully. So you know their contents and yet you are doing this anyway. To me that is not honorable. It seems to me, that until you are willing to correctly represent my position and until you are willing to work with me on how you want these references, there is no point in going forward here.

Edited May 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[DBMormon]

^{I agree with you that the focus of this particular story is riches. But, and this is a big but, riches is not the themeword here. Trust is. Trust in ____ as opposed to trust in God.}

I agree Volgadon

[zerinus]

I simply disagree that the account can or should be limited to "wealth as a stumbling block", for the reasons I mentioned above.

The account relates to wealth. The Lord didn't tell the young man to give up his beer, sex etc.; but to give up his wealth. The fact that the principle may be applicable to other worldly attachments is a differfent issue. But the account relates to wealth.

Anything that we covet- food, drink, women, song, video games, fine clothing, baseball cards, Star Trek re-runs, or even pets can be just as much a stumbling block as wealth.

All that is needed is that we set our hearts on those things instead of upon the Kingdom of Heaven.

Sure; but what has that got to do with the issue under discussion? The discussion centers on that account, which relates to wealth.

[Bernard Gui]

16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 ...but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Law of The Gospel and Law of Obedience and Law of Chastity

21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Law of Consecration

What do we have to do to have eternal life?

Make covenants in the temple.

Bernard

[followerofemmanuel]

Matthew 19 is a great chapter with everything from the little children being brought to Jesus to the "controversy" about marriage. In the last half of the chapter, Jesus is asked by a young man what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? Jesus then lists the commandments. The young man says he has done this, and Jesus then asks him to give up all he has and follow Him, which he of course refuses.

To me this is a huge rosetta stone in the works vs. grace debate. I don't think anyone is completely clear on the exact role each plays. Even Pastor Chuck from Calvary Chapel admits he isn't entirely clear on the balance between the two. On the other hand, the fact that Jesus Christ teaches works here, even when he was asked specifically about "what good thing(s) shall I do..." He answers, "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

I've heard this explained by my evangelical friends a couple ways, but the biggest one is that Christ was illustrating to the man and those listening that the young man couldn't earn his way into heaven. This particular explanation bothers me. It suggests to me that Jesus would lie to the man to make a point, or mislead him at least? I have a hard time biting this one off.

What other saved-by-grace explanations have you heard or do you subscribe to? Paul is very grace heavy, but Christ seems very works heavy throughout the gospels. Why is that? Should we emphasize the teachings of Paul over those of Jesus himself?

My two cents on this is that Jesus was not neccessarily promoting works rather faithfullness in this man's heart. If all the commandments can be summed up in to loving God and loving people, this suggest to me that this mans love for money is preventing him from living out one or both of these commandments. So I think its a heart issue. Was this man putting money before loving God or people? Was he relying on his wealth instead of trusting in God? Is he taking advantage of people to get wealthy? Is he generous his money? Does he help the poor? Maybe this man approached Jesus thinking, "I have not killed anyone, I have not stolen anything, I keep the sabath" etc. Don't get me wrong, I think works are very important as they can be telling of where our heart is. But I also know people who do great works and do not have any sort of faith in God

Edited May 27, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[DBMormon]

I also know people who outwardly look like the least worthy or least expected to achieve exhaltation who having discovered their hearts and their effort realize they are twice the person I am..... There are vile sinners outwardly who love the Lord and make more of an effort then the best os LDS and other "good" Christians.

[followerofemmanuel]

I also know people who outwardly look like the least worthy or least expected to achieve exhaltation who having discovered their hearts and their effort realize they are twice the person I am..... There are vile sinners outwardly who love the Lord and make more of an effort then the best os LDS and other "good" Christians.

Very true