How do you guys interpret Matthew 19:24?

[PtldPlatypus]

There is actually.

Refer to http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/eye_of_a_needle.htm for an in-depth look at some different options for how to interpret. I've always like the gate idea as it does make it seem difficult but the fourth explanation in this guys analysis is very compelling. An excerpt:



Gramps...

Your link actually says the same thing I did--that there's no historical evidence to support the claim that there was some gate into Jerusalem known as "the needle's eye". I am very familiar with the interpretation that the Greek word commonly translated as "camel" should actually be "rope"; however neither option changes the meaning of the passage, IMO.

 

[bluefrog]

How do you interpret 1 Tim 5? Especially v.4 and following? And II Thess 3?

1 Tim 5 v4

But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

This passage seems to say that people should take care of there family. There's also some antiquated rules about widows have to be older than 60 and people must add a little wine to their water.


II Thess 3

For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8*nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9*We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10*For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

These passages seem to be a warning against idleness.

I wouldn't interpret these passages to mean only give to "the poor who work (or who have worked their entire life and now are old) and who have no children or relatives to help them."

I think Jesus was pretty clear in Matthew 25:34-46

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

 

[BrianFromWA]

1 Tim 5 v4
This passage seems to say that people should take care of there family. There's also some antiquated rules about widows have to be older than 60 and people must add a little wine to their water.

Here's the whole passage (including what you call "antiquated rules", bolding mine)

Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5 The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6 But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7 Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame. 8 Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

16 If any woman who is a believer has widows in her care, she should continue to help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

II Thess 3These passages seem to be a warning against idleness.[/quote] They are an admonition not to associate with those who don't work and/or are unwilling to work. I imagine that, even if you somehow took it to mean that you could still give money (or were supposed to give money) to people who don't work or are unwilling to work, I find it hard to parse away the meaning of the rule in v.10: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

I wouldn't interpret these passages to mean only give to "the poor who work (or who have worked their entire life and now are old) and who have no children or relatives to help them."

Why? It's quite clear that if you have family, you're supposed to get support from them. If you aren't working, or are unwilling to work, you aren't to be associated with (and, my interpretation, given money as well).

I don't pretend to know much about the Catholic faith, so I don't want this to devolve, but it seems pretty clear from my understanding. I've never really heard differently.

 

[MarAzul]

Matthew 19:24
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

I'm just wondering how any of you believers, especially ones with money like Mags, interpret this portion.

The reason I ask is I was discussing the new Pope with a couple friends and we kept coming back to this sentiment as why certain religious conservatives despise this Pope.

So, just what are your views on this topic?

Actually This discussion with Jesus is all about him letting everyone in on the truth that being admitted to heaven is not about wealth. The rich man has no more a claim on the right to heaven than the poorest among us. The right to be admitted to heaven is about doing as God demands, no amount of wealth can grease the skids. One way in, no alliterative can be purchased. Finally, even giving away your wealth will not get it done if that's all you can account.

 

[Further]

Actually This discussion with Jesus is all about him letting everyone in on the truth that being admitted to heaven is not about wealth. The rich man has no more a claim on the right to heaven than the poorest among us. The right to be admitted to heaven is about doing as God demands, no amount of wealth can grease the skids. One way in, no alliterative can be purchased. Finally, even giving away your wealth will not get it done if that's all you can account.

It seems to me that according to that line you may be partially right, that nobody has claim to heaven, rich or poor. However, the words of Jesus go further than that, they make it known that having wealth can make it much more difficult to gain entrance than not being wealthy. There is nothing saying a wealthy person can't obtain heaven, but that the pitfalls (greed, gluttony, sloth) that often come with wealth make navigating the heavenly waters a very difficult task.

That's my take at least.

 

[MarAzul]

It seems to me that according to that line you may be partially right, that nobody has claim to heaven, rich or poor. However, the words of Jesus go further than that, they make it known that having wealth can make it much more difficult to gain entrance than not being wealthy. There is nothing saying a wealthy person can't obtain heaven, but that the pitfalls (greed, gluttony, sloth) that often come with wealth make navigating the heavenly waters a very difficult task.

That's my take at least.

It seems to me, we agree, not that we partially agree. Wealth is no hindrance nor is it an aid.
Obsessing over one's wealth or using it to purchase diversion could prevent a person from earning god's grace and with it, entry to heaven. Of course the poor may also find the way difficult standing idly by rather providing for their keep. This surely must be the case for any man that fails to provide for his children. I can't think of anything more sloven than an idle man
with hungry children.

 

[Further]

It seems to me, we agree, not that we partially agree. Wealth is no hindrance nor is it an aid.
Obsessing over one's wealth or using it to purchase diversion could prevent a person from earning god's grace and with it, entry to heaven. Of course the poor may also find the way difficult standing idly by rather providing for their keep. This surely must be the case for any man that fails to provide for his children. I can't think of anything more sloven than an idle man
with hungry children.

And yet "the meek shall inherit the earth".

I know this too has been interpreted many ways, some bibles don't translate meek, but gentle. But either way, often the person of wealth gains such riches (or keeps them) through coercion, aggression, and certainly not gentleness or meekness. I just think it's interesting, how people interpret the same words differently. I mean, we both agree that punching a man is aggressive, but what about pressure sales tactics or stuff like that. I find it interesting that some people are able to look at the historical context and underlining meaning of parables and find an opposite meaning to someone else who either interprets the same things differently, or tries to make no interpretations and just takes words at face value (ie Eve was made from an actual rib of Adam, or the universe us 6000 years old.).

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

"What Jesus meant to say....."

Said every Christian to spin this.

 

[MARIS61]

It's in English here. What language would you like it translated to?

 

[MarAzul]

And yet "the meek shall inherit the earth".

I know this too has been interpreted many ways, some bibles don't translate meek, but gentle. But either way, often the person of wealth gains such riches (or keeps them) through coercion, aggression, and certainly not gentleness or meekness. I just think it's interesting, how people interpret the same words differently. I mean, we both agree that punching a man is aggressive, but what about pressure sales tactics or stuff like that. I find it interesting that some people are able to look at the historical context and underlining meaning of parables and find an opposite meaning to someone else who either interprets the same things differently, or tries to make no interpretations and just takes words at face value (ie Eve was made from an actual rib of Adam, or the universe us 6000 years old.).

I never did understand the use of meek in the bible. It seems to mean something entirely different than todays dictionary suggests. Certainly not very docile or meek as a mouse. More like a morality quality, perhaps Humble in manner but not deferring. It maybe a thing with the writer of the Psalms but then Numbers 12:3 referrers to Moses as "very meek, above all the men which upon the face of the earth". Now I doubt the leader of his nation was a mouse but he well may have been a Humble man along with very assertive which would take considerable talent.

Then you need to consider that most of the usage of meek in question in the bible are in the old testament,
written by a rabi of Israeli or Judha. These are not the teachings of Jesus on how to prepare to be a candidate for heaven.

 

[bluefrog]

They are an admonition not to associate with those who don't work and/or are unwilling to work. I imagine that, even if you somehow took it to mean that you could still give money (or were supposed to give money) to people who don't work or are unwilling to work, I find it hard to parse away the meaning of the rule in v.10: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Why? It's quite clear that if you have family, you're supposed to get support from them. If you aren't working, or are unwilling to work, you aren't to be associated with (and, my interpretation, given money as well).

I don't pretend to know much about the Catholic faith, so I don't want this to devolve, but it seems pretty clear from my understanding. I've never really heard differently.

You didn't address Matthew 25:34-46.

Jesus didn't say "only feed widow's over 60" or "give drink to only to the thirsty who work". He clearly says "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me"

This is where the Catholic tradition of the 7 Corporal Works of Mercy come from.

 

[tlongII]

Otra vez te dije, es más fácil que un camello pase por el ojo de una aguja, que para alguien que es rico para entrar en el Reino de Dios."

 

[Sedatedfork]

I'm not sure what I think of this scripture now. When I was younger though I remember being very troubled by the verse. If people believed in the bible and believed in god and Jesus wholeheartedly, then why did those people have any possessions? Why do they even take a chance at losing eternal life? Why weren't they devoting their entire life to Jesus and giving away all of their possessions? I came away feeling as though Christians said they believed this stuff, but their actions told me they did not really or they would take this verse to heart. Now, I am just kind of like blah, blah, blah, blah -- like VG said.

 

[MarAzul]

I'm not sure what I think of this scripture now. When I was younger though I remember being very troubled by the verse. If people believed in the bible and believed in god and Jesus wholeheartedly, then why did those people have any possessions? Why do they even take a chance at losing eternal life? Why weren't they devoting their entire life to Jesus and giving away all of their possessions? I came away feeling as though Christians said they believed this stuff, but their actions told me they did not really or they would take this verse to heart. Now, I am just kind of like blah, blah, blah, blah -- like VG said.

Golly, it doesn't really seem all that difficult to me You can get to heaven doing as god requires which also mean not doing a few things. It hasn't got squat to do with what you have. Then there is this to consider, even though you could fail to make it to heavenly grace, just by trying you may do well enough to avoid hell on earth.

 

[donkiez]

So I am obviously not a religious guy but I believe this passage was meant to mean you can't buy your way into heaven. Its ok to have money, its what you do with it and possibly how you obtained it that counts. That's how I read it anyway.

In reference to the "rich republican Christians" I think that some people tend to skew the interpretation of the bible to meet their needs and justify what they want to justify.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Golly, it doesn't really seem all that difficult to me You can get to heaven doing as god requires which also mean not doing a few things. It hasn't got squat to do with what you have. Then there is this to consider, even though you could fail to make it to heavenly grace, just by trying you may do well enough to avoid hell on earth.

But why take the chance? You should just give up all earthly possessions.

 

[Further]

So I am obviously not a religious guy but I believe this passage was meant to mean you can't buy your way into heaven. Its ok to have money, its what you do with it and possibly how you obtained it that counts. That's how I read it anyway.

In reference to the "rich republican Christians" I think that some people tend to skew the interpretation of the bible to meet their needs and justify what they want to justify.

I tend to agree and would also interpret it the same way, but I think it's interesting because there are so many ways to read it, depending on ones biases. And If you take it literally (I don't) then you would have to believe that wealth makes entering heaven a near-impossibility. But many of the people who do take other parts of the bible literally, choose to view this passage more as an allegory.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You should read the parable of the Talents (or Minas, depending on whether you read the Matthew 25 or Luke 19 version). How does that reconcile with your question about "why take the chance...give up earthly possessions"?

 

[MarAzul]

But why take the chance? You should just give up all earthly possessions.

We all do, many or few.

 

[Sedatedfork]

You should read the parable of the Talents (or Minas, depending on whether you read the Matthew 25 or Luke 19 version). How does that reconcile with your question about "why take the chance...give up earthly possessions"?

My understanding is that this is a parable about evangelism, no? I suppose you could say with all my worldly possessions I am able to evangelize several other souls, but you can't tell me there isn't some skimming there.

 

[Sedatedfork]

We all do, many or few.

Sure. And I totally understand the temptation to not jump full in. But, I saw a lot of hypocrisy when I struggled with this question, which is about the time where I was turned off by religion. I also totally get that it is really impractical to become a hermit or to a lesser degree live completely on a needs base as opposed to having more than what is necessary to living. I never though did receive a fully satisfactory answer. The answer different elders told me is that you reached heaven through faith. And then I challenged, well okay, but this scripture seems to say you should do more to get to heaven. The answer I received was, well, it's just a lesson. You can only have one god. I understand there is a way to interpret it. I just didn't buy it, and felt like people were making the bible what they wanted it to be, to suit their own goals or ways of life. That's about the time I said, yeah.... umm... this seems like a lot of bullshit.

 

[donkiez]

I tend to agree and would also interpret it the same way, but I think it's interesting because there are so many ways to read it, depending on ones biases. And If you take it literally (I don't) then you would have to believe that wealth makes entering heaven a near-impossibility. But many of the people who do take other parts of the bible literally, choose to view this passage more as an allegory.

I think your on to something. The bible is widely open to interpretation and I've always felt that the way people choose to interpret it, and what areas they choose to focus on, say more about the person than anything else.

 

[BrianFromWA]

The evangelical Christian will (should?) confirm that you get to Heaven ("salvation") through faith that Christ is Who He says He is (the Son of God sent to save the world) and did what He says He did through the Gospels (lived a sinless life, was killed, was resurrected and is seated next to the Father in Heaven), while living/understanding/believing that Jesus is the Lord (Boss, able to give you rules to live by) of your life (Romans 10). Period. Not faith in that plus giving money to the poor. Not faith plus not cheating on your wife. Not even faith plus not stealing. The Bible is replete with "sinners" (we all are one--Romans 3:23) who through no way of their own would do anything to take away their sin and make them holy before God (and therefore qualified to live with Him eternally: Heaven). But they believed that Jesus was who He said He was and that He could forgive them of their repented sins, and are with him in Heaven today.

Which Scriptures were you looking at to say that you had to "do more"? Usually when I'm talking to someone unfamiliar with the Bible and/or Christianity (not saying that this is anyone in this thread), I take them through something people call the "Romans Road" that lays out the basic tenets of salvation and why Christians believe what they do, and then just let them read it aloud and tell me what they got out of it. I can do it here as an exercise.

Romans 3:23--"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If they need a bit more to ensure who "all" is, I point to Romans 3:10-12.
Romans 6:23--"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus."
Romans 5:8--"But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners"
Romans 10:9-10,13--"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved...For 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'"
Romans 5:1 "Therefore, since we have been made right in God’s sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us."
Romans 8:1 "So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus."
Romans 8:38-39--"And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord."

 

[MarAzul]

The evangelical Christian will (should?) confirm that you get to Heaven ("salvation") through faith that Christ is Who He says He is (the Son of God sent to save the world) and did what He says He did through the Gospels (lived a sinless life, was killed, was resurrected and is seated next to the Father in Heaven), while living/understanding/believing that Jesus is the Lord (Boss, able to give you rules to live by) of your life (Romans 10). Period. Not faith in that plus giving money to the poor. Not faith plus not cheating on your wife. Not even faith plus not stealing. The Bible is replete with "sinners" (we all are one--Romans 3:23) who through no way of their own would do anything to take away their sin and make them holy before God (and therefore qualified to live with Him eternally: Heaven). But they believed that Jesus was who He said He was and that He could forgive them of their repented sins, and are with him in Heaven today.

Which Scriptures were you looking at to say that you had to "do more"? Usually when I'm talking to someone unfamiliar with the Bible and/or Christianity (not saying that this is anyone in this thread), I take them through something people call the "Romans Road" that lays out the basic tenets of salvation and why Christians believe what they do, and then just let them read it aloud and tell me what they got out of it. I can do it here as an exercise.

Romans 3:23--"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If they need a bit more to ensure who "all" is, I point to Romans 3:10-12.
Romans 6:23--"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus."
Romans 5:8--"But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners"
Romans 10:9-10,13--"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved...For 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'"
Romans 5:1 "Therefore, since we have been made right in God’s sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us."
Romans 8:1 "So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus."
Romans 8:38-39--"And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Hey, that's good walk down that road. And it leads directly to the problem at least for me.

After studying all religions in an attempt to discover "Why men need religion" I find I really do not have any problems with religion except Islam but that is another story for another day.

I think I have found several reason why men need religion and that is also another story but Christianity in particular to me and specifically the teaching of Christ seem good for our society
which is much better everywhere it holds sway in todays world. I believe in God creating this world but not in the literal sense given in the Old Testament The stories in the old Testament
are included as the history of the Hebrew people and their God which is the history of the beginnings of Christianity which is different than the teaching of Jesus given in the New Testament.

I do not have a problem with any of the teachings of Jesus, as far has I can see these are good as a whole. It gets a bit beyond what I can accept when it come to the loyalty we are to give to this fellow on his word Even more loyal to him than your family, Then we have the road block to heaven that is Jesus, no matter the good life you lead, the good you do, or how well you keep the commandments, you must accept Jesus as God and your savior. Through him is the only path to heaven.

This old fella just ain't got that pure faith, so the best I can do is avoid hell on earth being as good a man as I see fit. That Roman road has just one too many impediments, this one.

"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

 

[Sedatedfork]

Which Scriptures were you looking at to say that you had to "do more"?

It was the camel, eye of a needle verse. And I see your point and how you interpret the scriptures. I just personally questioned how much the people I was surrounded by really believed these scriptures if they weren't jumping full in. There were things that I felt were more important to most of the people I interacted with at church than eternal life, despite what they said. And I suppose if you read the bible as you have, would you say that the rich man still gets to heaven because he has faith? Certainly, life would kind of suck if we all just lived in poverty because we all wanted to get into heaven. Maybe you are right that my issue is with sin. Why do Christians sin? Is it because they do not believe? Is it because to them, their self-interest is more important than eternal life? Is it because of Satan? Is it because they get to be forgiven and still get to heaven? Maybe I just never really understood Christianity.

 

[Further]

Thank you Brian, MarAzul, Zybot, donkiez and others who have participated in this thread. I find it refreshing to be able to actually have a discussion about a subject such as this without either "side" getting overly pushy or righteous.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Thank you Brian, MarAzul, Zybot, donkiez and others who have participated in this thread. I find it refreshing to be able to actually have a discussion about a subject such as this without either "side" getting overly pushy or righteous.

I would like to echo this as well. We all want to express our views, but listening to other views is how you learn.

 

[MarAzul]

Thank you Brian, MarAzul, Zybot, donkiez and others who have participated in this thread. I find it refreshing to be able to actually have a discussion about a subject such as this without either "side" getting overly pushy or righteous.

Good discussion Further. I guess I am sort of like the Jews warned but can't quite make it.
Well not quite that either, not being a Jew or one of God's chosen people, with which he made a Covenant, will probably be a big deal when the time comes.

Maybe when the judgment day comes, I will hang out with the Buddhist to see what gate they enter heaven. I have to think there was an error in translation or perhaps a critical book was
omitted from the canon that describes a path for the almost Christian (that would be me), the Jew, the Hindu, the Buddhist. Hard to believe God (or the Father if you prefer) intended to make the club of heaven quite so exclusive, after creating all of us.

Wow! This moved a long way from being about wealth, it's much more difficult for some.

 

[MarAzul]

I read, I think, that the Pope is working on finding a path for Atheist to enter heaven. Maybe I can exploit that avenue. Kind of doubt it though, being and Atheist really takes much more faith than I can muster.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Usually when I'm talking to someone unfamiliar with the Bible and/or Christianity (not saying that this is anyone in this thread), I take them through something people call the "Romans Road" that lays out the basic tenets of salvation and why Christians believe what they do, and then just let them read it aloud and tell me what they got out of it. I can do it here as an exercise.

Romans 3:23--"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If they need a bit more to ensure who "all" is, I point to Romans 3:10-12.
Romans 6:23--"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus."
Romans 5:8--"But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners"
Romans 10:9-10,13--"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved...For 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved'"
Romans 5:1 "Therefore, since we have been made right in God’s sight by faith, we have peace with God because of what Jesus Christ our Lord has done for us."
Romans 8:1 "So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus."
Romans 8:38-39--"And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord."

And now for something completely different...

[video=youtube;FE04NYwlZj8]