Parables 101

Not at all. I'm pointing out that if YOUR interpretation of Zacchaeus is valid, then Jesus contradicted Himself. If Jesus DIDN'T contradict Himself, your interpretation of Zacchaeus must be invalid. Your apologist doesn't explain why the early church believed that Jesus meant what He said.Your apologist also lies through his teeth: "Even if the rich young ruler would have given away his riches and followed Christ, he wouldn’t have earned his salvation." That's EXACTLY what Jesus said WOULD happen. Stop lying. I have told you many times that I don't believe in any "great world".

Why do you always do that Gish Gallop? That has NOTHING to do with what we were talking about. Go back and answer the post you quoted. Respond to the bold-faced lie that your apologist told.

That's not the way the writer of Acts told it. He said they were punished for "A AND B". He did not say "A but not B".Your argument is like saying murder is okay but don't you dare LIE about it. That would be REALLY bad.

Nothing vague about it. It was a flat-out bold-faced lie: He contradicted Jesus directly and completely. There's no getting around that. Jesus said it is. That IS following Jesus. Literally. It is what He did. He asked what he had to do to go to heaven. He would have understood what Jesus meant. He would not have expected to "follow" Jesus on his chauffeur-driven camel with his retinue of servants. Jesus was not a one-trick pony. He didn't repeat one thing ad nauseam. How about the early church? Why did they do what Jesus said if it was "clear" that He didn't mean it for everybody. The point of giving up everything was to put your trust in God, not in your own riches. I have discussed the contexts in some detail. You have not. Before you can brag about your lofty levels of understanding, you need to go back and answer your myriad of unanswered posts. The message is what matters.