Jesus was a Liberal Hippie

It is obvious to anyone that those who have riches are qualifed as those who trust in riches...God through Mark did not contradict himself one verse later. The two go hand in had and do not contradict so it is talking about the rich who trust in riches who cannot make heaven, however; again God does not contradict himself the rich who do not trust in riches like Nicodemus need to be reborn spiritually.Your straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel that cannot go through the eye of the needle! Or do we need to thresh out that parable also!

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

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 forget a tenet of proper exegesis. The audience of the time and the original language. The audience was first century Jews well versed in the Old Testament law who knew that wealth was not inherently wicked! You are reading it approx 1950 years later in English from your culteral indoctrination wanting jesus to be a liberal hippie!Sorry but the qualifier in Mark applies and cannot be dismissed because it is only in one gospel. I suppose you discount the sermon on the mount which is only in Matthew!Gotcha again!

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

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

you strip-quote me again and leave out the my main point which qualifies what you strip-quoted, that I was speaking on principles of exegesis or correct interpretation, which include original language and audience of the time so that the bible can 'speak to us today' which is proper exegesis is!Plus you need to understand what a proof text is and that is a text that clarifies and qualifies others. Mark lends greater understanding to the other two citations of the incident and as such cannot be dismissed. You know that pesky 'Word of God' thing that prohibits dismissing other passages that disagree with you. Mark is still the word of God! Yeah but it's fun!Lastly, Jesus said 'the poor you have with you always'. Works are evidence of salvation as you said, not the salvation itself. Remember Grace which = unmerited favor? We cannot merit Salvation romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, no one does good no not one." And just before "Our righteousness is as filthy rags before the Lord." If our best efforts are filthy rags (the word actually means menstrual rags which were unclean) then how can works help save us? They cant they are only evidence of salvation, fruits of a good tree. Again Ephesians 2; "For you are saved by Grace through faith, AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast." Salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned. Grace = Unmerited Favor. Salvation is by Grace and works are fruits. Riches are irrelevant and in the Old Testament are a sign of blessing Deut 28: "Now it shall come to pass that if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God...blessed shall be the fruit of your body, the produce of your ground and the increase of your herds, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks...The LORD will command the blesing on you in your storehouses and in all to which you set our hand and he will bless you in the land which the LORD your God is giving to you"Plus the law of increase which everyone knows...Tithe and it is returned to you tenfold etc...The Old Testament Covenant was that if the Jews obeyed God then he would bless them and the blessing was to be a witness to the other nations who would want what the Jews had and turn to God. That includes physical blessings such as riches and spiritual. They operate on the same principle. You assume that if one donates to the poor that will make them poor themselves but that isnt true. You give charitably and it is multiplied unto you. God's blessings can be without limit.Good Luck, God Bless

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

here's the problem. you see, the reason Russia, and Cuba, and China, and all the other's went that way was for one reason:Lenin--the peasants are too stupid to rule themselves, so we have to take the spot of dictator.If you recall, Marx called for a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marxism-Leninism, calls for the same system of Marx, but replace the prole with a real dictator.And dictator's are afraid of losing power. That's why all those commie countries ended up as they did.
If there ever was a country of proles smart enough to run the country without a dictator, my guess--communism would have the best chance ever of succeeding. Problem is, no group of people is that smart. One, yes. Two in tandem, yes. Ten, sure. A million--no. 300 million--definetaly not.don't confuse communism with tyrranical dictatorship. It's the latter that's the cause of those effects you outlined.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

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

He cant...you cant take it with you. But we are not commanded to feed ALL the poor and cloth ALL the naked. That's what the poor you will have with you always means. Some are lazy so it says "He who will not work shall not eat". The nations who reject God like Russia did in the past have an incredibly bad standard of living...a poverty level which is a witnessing tool, atheism begats poverty...if you want to succeed per Deut 28 already cited and be productive and prosperous repent and turn to God.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

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

No we are talking about the Word of God...anyway all the cites about Jesus were by the eyewitnesses not directly written in Jesus' hand. Same difference. Paul spoke by the Holy Spirit which =the word of God.You eisogete to ssay your quote includes all it does not as the cite I gave proves...the poor you have with you always (Jesus btw) and he who will not work shall not eat. both the word of God proving we do not feed and cloth all but do give 10% tithe and above that offerings. You were right 10% is just the starting point.

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

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 cant pick and choose which parts of the Bible you like to quote. Either it is the word of God or it isnt. You cant choose Matthew and Luke and Ignore Mark and Paul's Epistles. That is just plain bias picking and choosing according to personal taste. You dont know that!What's your evidence besides that the quotes I gave refute you and so you refuse to accept them?How can you justify accepting the eyewitnesses but not Paul (who was accepted by the apostles and eyewitnesses btw) Your methodology is seriously flawed here. By the same logic anyone can not accept the eyewitness testimony that could be just what they thought which doesnt fly. The eyewitnesses and Paul were all inspired by God.I'll pray for you

---

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

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

dude, that's like, 90000 posts!holy crap! (or should it be the holy cow of the hindus? )

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

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