Without getting too /r/atheism, it is funny to see the lengths many Christian scholars will go to try and justify that line.
“Oh, well they were probably actually referring to this giant arch that might have once been translated as “the eye of the needle”, meaning that they were saying it’s really easy to get into heaven”
Like what the fuck? What do you guys think is the point of the passage then?
And these aren’t like yokels and grifters. They’re like PhDs in Christian Theology. The religion at a point is just almost entirely concerned with making up translations and it literally always has been
Kind of how they only focus on half of the definition of Gluttony and ignore how it also means excessive Greed.
I find most of the seven sins redundant.
Lust and gluttony and envy fall under greed. You could also argue sloth for greed of sleep. Wrath and pride are the only two that don’t fall under the greed category.
Especially when the next couple of verses explains it.
Yeah, it’s pretty unambiguous. Jesus tells the rich boy that came to him to give away all their possessions and let the Lord clothe them as he does the birds and flowers. Rich boy gets real sad and goes away.
Christians are so desperate to ignore Christ that they literally made up a gate that they called The Eye of the Needle and said that’s what Christ was talking about. This gate, which definitely never existed and was not at all what Christ was referring to, was supposedly a bit narrower than other gates and a camel could get through it if it was only carrying a moderate amount of wealth rather than an extreme amount.
I talked to one of the authors of the New American Bible, who told me the text is a mistranslation, and it’s more like “harder than putting a rope through the eye of a needle”, which would’ve been an idiom familiar to the fishers in the area.
It means “impossible”, which is suitable because the things Jesus called for you to do make a rich person into a not rich person, as far as material wealth goes.
I’d be curious to see some actual source on that. Shit like that happens all the time and I find it fascinating.
According to the Lexham Bible Dictionary, this interpretation “dates back to the fifth century and suggests that kamelos, the Greek word for camel, should actually be read as kamilos, which denotes a rope or a ship’s anchor cable. … However, most scholars reject this interpretation because the meager textual evidence most likely can be attributed to speculations about this verse by some church fathers (Origen, Cyril of Alexandria; see Fitzmyer, Luke, 1204; Barclay, Matthew, 239).”
They also disagree with the gate interpretation, saying that “Scholars have found no historical foundation for this view, and no evidence supports the existence of such a small gate in Jerusalem’s walls.”
Camel could also mean rope which is a very similar word in Aramaic. Of course I don’t read Aramaic but that’s what someone said.
According to the Lexham Bible Dictionary, “most scholars reject this interpretation because the meager textual evidence most likely can be attributed to speculations about this verse by some church fathers.”
He said it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for rich people to go to heaven.
Jesus warned his followers to beware wolves in sheep’s clothing, only there to prey upon the flock from within.
So who else would they be besides con artist preachers?
Grew up with this stupid interpretation that it refers to some small gate in Jerusalem that camels had to bend down to use or something.
Jesus literally gives the answer in the next sentence:
”Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” He replied, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.”“ Luke 18:25-27 NRSV
God can save anyone. And my layman’s interpretation on top of it, no man can save himself.
God can save anyone.
Well yeah, but if you’re a Christian you believe that it’s literally God telling you that you can’t be rich and go to heaven. God may make an exception, but it would be just as absurd for you to count on being an exception to this rule as it would be for you to count on being the exception to the rule that “none come to the father but through me”. If you’re rich, you’re just as damned as if you were never Christian to begin with.
I am a Christian and I think your argument is weak. That Jesus talks of a rich person here is irrelevant, the core of Jesus teaching is that salvation is a gift freely given, but not something we can obtain in our own power.
Christianity and Christians who have their own custom-built version that gets them off scot free, name a more iconic duo.
I dont think irrelevant they were rich, I think it indicated that you cant buy your way into heaven and you are not chosen by God to be rich.
Fair point, what I meant is that in relation to being saved, it’s irrelevant he is rich because only God can save people. In relation to the hardships you’d face with being a Christian and rich it’s valid.
That Jesus talks of a rich person here is irrelevant
it’s your god, of what he says you get to decide what to ignore and what to value
That’s not my argument at all but it seems you’re not interested in that
Also Evangelicals: No, no, why do you bring up the Pope, we’re talking about CHRISTIANS, not CATHOLICS.
Evangelicals call it “prosperity gospel” and it’s a total perversion of Jesus’ teachings. Basically, it claims that rich people deserve to be rich because their wealth is proof that they have God’s favor. It’s used to explain away why preachers are allowed to own private jets, yachts and diamond mines.
Considering I know that Jesus asked his followers to give up earthly possessions to join him, I don’t trust those con artists pretending to be God on earth. God wouldn’t favor people doing the opposite of what he sent his son down to preach.
