Jesus was a Liberal Hippie

Exactly. And none of the verses says anything about "trusting in riches". They all say "rich man".The state of being rich is the constraint.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Back up a little further:

quote:

---

Mar 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

---

Mark leaves you a tiny loophole: If you can convince God that you didn't "trust" in your riches, you might make it into heaven.But to Matthew and Luke, that loophole must be about as big as the eye of a needle, or they would have mentioned it too.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well, it wasn't so "obvious" to Matthew or Luke, 'cause they didn't mention it. All three gospels say quite plainly that those who have riches have a hard time getting into heaven - trust or no trust.You're trying to take one little reference to "trust" and spread it out over a whole lot of territory when it just isn't there. Seems a bit like trying to stretch a gnat to the size of a camel.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You're on a slippery slope there, with the idea that the Bible can't speak to us today. It's not a question of what I "want". It's a question of what the text says. I didn't dismiss it. I said it isn't the be-all and end-all of the passage. If two out of three gospeleers didn't mention it, how important can it be? Different situation altogether. The sermon on the mount is a whole incident. If Mark and Luke didn't report it, maybe they just weren't there. (For the purpose of this discussion, I'm treating the gospels as eyewitness accounts.)The camel/needle story, on the other hand, is in all three gospels and differs only by that one small detail. You pin far to many of your hopes on your pet interpretation of that one little word "trust".-------------Let's try a different tack:We have seen that it is very difficult for a rich man to get into heaven. (Let's leave aside the issue of "In Cash We Trust" for a second.)We have also seen that entrance into heaven is judged on the basis of how one treats the hungry, thirsty, etc.Now, suppose we have a rich man stepping up to the pearly gates with his bags of gold. How does he explain that he still has all those riches? Did he leave anybody hungry or thirsty? Was there a shortage of hungry or thirsty people, so that he was forced to keep his riches?Kindly explain to us how a man can do the good works that are required for salvation and still have enough money left over to be rich. Crowing victory doesn't impress anybody. Edited by Ringo, : Promoted myself to "I".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I told you before, I only quote you to point out what I'm refering to - not to make a point. I reply to everything I consider significant. I told you before, I don't dismiss Mark. I only pointed out that you exaggerate the importance of that one little word, "trust". So how can a rich man show up at heaven's gate still rich? The poor we have with us always, so how could he have fed all the hungry and clothed all the naked? How can his works be evidence of salvation when he has left so much undone? Figure of speech, of course.
Ninety percent is a rule-of-thumb for what the average person needed to keep. The tithe was never intended as a flat tax. The rich were always expected to give over and above.And whatever is returned to you, you are also expected to use for feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. It shows your age.These threads go to 300 posts and I have enough ammunition for 300 threads before I have to open a book. I prophesy that you won't be here that long. A hot fire burns out quickly. Ringo smoulders forever.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes we are. Jesus said:

quote:

---

Mat 25:40 ... Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

---

He didn't leave anybody out. If you leave one person hungry, thirsty, etc. when you have the means to help them, you have left Jesus hungry and thirsty. That's Paul. We're talking about Jesus.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The topic is "Jesus was a Liberal Hippie". We don't care what Paul thought. Irrelevant. The eyewitnesses were reporting what Jesus thought about feeding the poor. Paul was talking about what Paul thought about feeding the poor. Big difference. 'Fraid that ain't a given here."The poor you will always have with you" means that we have a never-ending supply of oppurtunities to use our resources wisely for His sake.If you think we don't need to help all of the poor, where do you draw the line?What words would you put in Jesus' mouth? Which hungry would you not feed? Which thirsty would you not give drink? Which naked would you not clothe?What do you suppose Jesus meant when He said, "the least of these"?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You miss my point: It's not a given that any of the Bible is "the word of God". Discussing that would be the proverbial "other topic".We are discussing here what the Bible says about Jesus (and only Jesus). We are not concerned with whether it is true or not. I'll say it a third time: I am not ignoring Mark. I am trying to correct your misinterpretation of Mark. We most certainly can ignore Paul's epistles when we're discussing Jesus' opinions, not Paul's. Simple:Q: What did Jesus say about the poor?A1: Jesus said, "Sell what you have and give to the poor."A2: Paul said: "If any would not work, neither should he eat."Answer 2 is wrong because it doesn't answer the question. It flies very nicely, but thats a different topic. Since you're new, I'm conceding the "eyewitness" testimony - but don't expect to be handled with kid gloves in every discussion here. Not a factor in this discussion.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I plan to retire at a million.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You're not paying attention. I said we're not necessarily "accepting" any of the Bible. We're discussing what it says, not its truth value. Not at all. Their imprimatur has no more inherent value than that of Peter Cottontail. You didn't "successfully" demonstrate that at all. The passage clearly talks about what must be done (sell and give) - not why it must be done. Once again, you overestimate your own success. It's not enough to convince yourself of what you already believe. I have polled the choir and even they don't swallow your sermon. Congratulations.
I debate based on your demeanor and what I perceive as your ability - not on your resume. My fan club is out there. That's okay. I have a short memory too. I like you too, but I'd hardly say we're "engaged".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Saskatchewan.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC