16 Dec 09
1 edit
I can't believe what I'm hearing. Being rich or poor has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not one is written in the Book of Life.
No man gets into heaven without the blood of Jesus. That alone is the deciding factor: have your sins been washed clean in the blood of Jesus, or not? Has the blood of Jesus set you free from the lust of the flesh, or not? Has the blood of Jesus made you fit for heaven, or not?
There are some poor folk who live down the street, who squander everything they have on drugs; are they fit for heaven simply because they are poor? On the same block there lives a rich couple who live holy lives and give generously of their time and wealth to the cause of God's kingdom; are they doomed simply because they're educated, work at a university, and handle their money wisely?
Give me a break.
16 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyummm would just like to state Whodey that many of Gods servents were indeed quite wealthy, in fact some were fabulously wealthy, as in the case of Solomon. Job was also wealthy, as was Abraham and many others. King David is another example of someone who was very wealthy. My references to capitalism are just making fun, and not to be taken seriously. The main problem that some have, is that Christ seems on the surface to have condemned those who are rich, but this is not the case. Consider this passage in scripture.
After talking a bit to Robbie, I get the impression that some here may think that being "rich" is sinful and/or those that favor capitalism. Do you?
Of course, it may behoove us to define "rich".
(Matthew 19:16-24) . . .Now, look! a certain one came up to him and said: “Teacher, what good must I do in order to get everlasting life?” He said to him: “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is that is good. If, though, you want to enter into life, observe the commandments continually.” He said to him: “Which ones?” Jesus said: “Why, You must not murder, You must not commit adultery, You must not steal, You must not bear false witness, Honour your father and your mother, and, You must love your neighbour as yourself.” The young man said to him: “I have kept all these; what yet am I lacking?” Jesus said to him: “If you want to be perfect, go sell your belongings and give to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven, and come be my follower.” When the young man heard this saying, he went away grieved, for he was holding many possessions. But Jesus said to his disciples: “Truly I say to you that it will be a difficult thing for a rich man to get into the kingdom of the heavens. Again I say to you, It is easier for a camel to get through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of God.”
how are we to understand these words, for clearly many of Gods faithful servants were wealthy?
The key is in the highlighted text. Its not what a person has, but the emphasis that he puts on these things. Thus the young mans riches meant more to him than becoming a follower of Christ. The apostle Paul himself qualifies this statement when he states
(Hebrews 13:5) . . .Let your manner of life be free of the love of money, while you are content with the present things. For he has said: “I will by no means leave you nor by any means forsake you.”
Thus it seems that a Christian should not put emphasis on the acquiring of wealth, although wealth in itself is not a problem, unless of course it comes between us and our God.
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by rwingettCertainly not, but if you watch how God deals with his people throught the Bible they often prosper, in fact God promises prosperity. This has nothing to do with the "Prosperity Gospel" which is basically charlatans extorting money out of people who are either too lazy or too stupid or sadly, too decieved to know any better.
Is that some variation of the "prosperity gospel" that has become popular with so many TV ministries?
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by jaywillGood point Jay...
[b]===========================
Jesus spends a large part of the bible condemning the rich and praising the poor. If the bible makes anything clear it is that being rich is sinful. I fail to see how any other conclusion could possibly be drawn.
======================================
Being rich is sinful ???
Well I thought the Bible sa ...[text shortened]... the LOVE of money.
Do you understand the difference between money and the love of money ?[/b]
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe "blood of Jesus" is a bit of Pauline mythology created after Jesus died. Jesus never really said anything about that. It's rubbish. What Jesus probably did articulate was the preferential option for the poor (The last will be first, and the first last). Simply giving to charity is not enough. you cannot buy your way into the kingdom. One must strive to overcome the conditions which breed the injustices of this world. As long as one is complicit in maintaining an iniquitous system of private property, of operating according to the dictates of the profit motive, and of saying that this or that wealth is mine and mine alone, then the doors of the kingdom shall be shut to him.
I can't believe what I'm hearing. Being rich or poor has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not one is written in the Book of Life.
No man gets into heaven without the blood of Jesus. That alone is the deciding factor: have your sins been washed clean in the blood of Jesus, or not? Has the blood of Jesus set you free from the lust of the fl ...[text shortened]... e they're educated, work at a university, and handle their money wisely?
Give me a break.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by rwingettLet's face it - if I'm rich then it will not prevent me from going to heaven, if you're rich then you will surely go straight to hell.
The "blood of Jesus" is a bit of Pauline mythology created after Jesus died. Jesus never really said anything about that. It's rubbish. What Jesus probably did articulate was the preferential option for the poor (The last will be first, and the first last). Simply giving to charity is not enough. you cannot buy your way into the kingdom. One must strive to ...[text shortened]... is or that wealth is mine and mine alone, then the doors of the kingdom shall be shut to him.
It is not about the money - it is only about what you care about. Platitudes will not show the real error and will not point the way to a real solution. Implicit in the idea of capitalism is the idea of building real wealth. Cash is not wealth. The creation of wealth entails a capacity to produce real work. When the struggle to create wealth is reduced to manipulating cash then you've already left capitalism far behind. You've entered a realm of decadence and excess that bears no resemblance to work. You are are a gambler not a worker. In my day gamblers went to hell but nowadays even the holy want to take a spin at the wheel hoping to get lucky. The hell-bound train has far too few seats for those queuing now. Do you really think there are righteous men waiting in that line?
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by rwingettThe "blood of Jesus" is a bit of Pauline mythology created after Jesus died. Jesus never really said anything about that. It's rubbish.
The "blood of Jesus" is a bit of Pauline mythology created after Jesus died. Jesus never really said anything about that. It's rubbish. What Jesus probably did articulate was the preferential option for the poor (The last will be first, and the first last). Simply giving to charity is not enough. you cannot buy your way into the kingdom. One must strive to ...[text shortened]... is or that wealth is mine and mine alone, then the doors of the kingdom shall be shut to him.
Perhaps you should commence a serious study of the actual Bible, rwingett, instead of seeing it solely through the cracked lens of all that biased literature you're so fond of. At the very least, doing so may prevent you in the future from looking as ridiculous as you do now.
Jesus, while Paul was yet a Pharisee mind you, did in fact speak of the salvific efficacy of His shed blood: "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:28), "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many" (Mark 14:24), "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22:20). Three separate books confirming the same statement.
We also find that 1 John mentions the blood as well: "the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). The blood of Christ is also mentioned in Revelation: "To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood" (Rev. 1:5). And Peter: "You were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:18-19).
It is obvious that the blood of Jesus, far from being a separate Pauline mythology, was a teaching which originated with Jesus and was simply expounded upon by His disciples.
Read yer Bible.
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by rwingettThe "blood of Jesus" is a bit of Pauline mythology created after Jesus died.
The "blood of Jesus" is a bit of Pauline mythology created after Jesus died. Jesus never really said anything about that. It's rubbish. What Jesus probably did articulate was the preferential option for the poor (The last will be first, and the first last). Simply giving to charity is not enough. you cannot buy your way into the kingdom. One must strive to ...[text shortened]... is or that wealth is mine and mine alone, then the doors of the kingdom shall be shut to him.
News flash, professor. The entire life story of the Lord Jesus Christ, the acts of the apostles, and the epistles which both inform and constitute the entirety of orthodox Christian doctrine were all written after the death, burial, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. What the timing of their writing has to do with anything related to veracity is only a question in your mind.
All of history is recorded in the exact same manner, but for your ever-contrarian mind, this is a problem when it comes to anything Christ-related. Disturbing pattern you follow, really.
Jesus never really said anything about that. It's rubbish.
Never ask a garbage man to be a merchant.
What Jesus probably did articulate was...
Oh, and never ask someone who clearly lacks credible sources to provide a dogmatic statement.
... the preferential option for the poor (The last will be first, and the first last). Simply giving to charity is not enough. you cannot buy your way into the kingdom. One must strive to overcome the conditions which breed the injustices of this world.
You nailed all the buzzwords, hit the right emotional fervor, but--- in the end--- it was just a little pitchy for me.
Wait a tic! Here's something that creates the buzzwords, relies not a stitch on emotion and is pitch perfect. As if that wasn't enough, it's in three-part harmony!
Matthew 26:11
"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me."
Mark 14:7
"The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have Me."
John 12:8
"You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."
Maybe you could polish up your act and try again?
As long as one is complicit in maintaining an iniquitous system of private property, of operating according to the dictates of the profit motive, and of saying that this or that wealth is mine and mine alone, then the doors of the kingdom shall be shut to him.
Spoken like a person completely disconnected from history, reality and doctrine.
Cold out there, innit?
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by rwingettDefine rich. For example, I believe Obama and company define it as making over $250.000.
To be rich is to be greedy and selfish with a love of money. The quality of being rich is the physical manifestation of those sins. Whether being rich itself is a sin, or whether being rich is a sure indication of sin at work, seems to make little difference. The fact remains that all who are rich are sinful and they will not enter into the kingdom.
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeydepends on how you got rich. depends on what you do once you get rich. and depends on the reasons you had to be rich.
After talking a bit to Robbie, I get the impression that some here may think that being "rich" is sinful and/or those that favor capitalism. Do you?
Of course, it may behoove us to define "rich".
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am interested in what Jesus said, not what the bible says. And I don't believe Jesus said half of the things that are attributed to him in the bible. I think most of what came to be Christian theology was simply invented after his death. Especially the more fantastical elements of Christian mythology, like the alleged divinity, virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus. A careful, critical reading of the bible will show how those tall tales were misconstrued and elaborated over time. You need to strip away all those layers of built up mythology and get back to what it was that Jesus actually said. It has very little in common with the Pauline Christianity you're used to.
[b]The "blood of Jesus" is a bit of Pauline mythology created after Jesus died. Jesus never really said anything about that. It's rubbish.
Perhaps you should commence a serious study of the actual Bible, rwingett, instead of seeing it solely through the cracked lens of all that biased literature you're so fond of. At the very least, doin ...[text shortened]... ed with Jesus and was simply expounded upon by His disciples.
Read yer Bible.[/b]
17 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeyi think that enters the area of wealthy. rich is having a house, two cars, a dog in the yard, two kids in college (a good college) and still having money left over each month.
Define rich. For example, I believe Obama and company define it as making over $250.000.
18 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell you apparently don't agree with Obama and company. I think you can have a house, two cars, a dog, and kids in college with money left over every month and not make over $250,000. You're right though, to be blessed to that degree is simply disgusting and they should be punished.
i think that enters the area of wealthy. rich is having a house, two cars, a dog in the yard, two kids in college (a good college) and still having money left over each month.