There are no places He doesn’t belong. The Cross is the ultimate revelation of God’s character and everything else conforms to it.
That’s the “temple inauguration” genre at work.
The flip side is that there were lists of the gates in the city, and that name doesn’t appear. It would have had no use except as a sally port, which would only have existed in the Antonius fortress and only Romans would have been allowed to use it.
Especially when it contradicts His statement that with man it is impossible.
Only if you refuse to read it as the ancient literature it was written as and demand that the Holy Spirit had to conform to a MSWV.
No, that’s science fiction you’ve made up to fit the text.
So does Genesis 1 if you know what you’re reading – all the major Egyptian gods are there.
That’s not what royal chronicle is.
More science fiction.
I’m weary of trying to correct your mangling of the text. You can enjoy your invented story for yourself, but stop pretending it’s what the text has to say.
And I’m especially weary of you turning the inspired writer into a liar.
There’s no history in Genesis 1 to throw out – it’s the wrong types of literature.
I do not think I am softening anything. It would make senes and be consistent for Jesus to be referring to something people knew and could identify. Perhaps you thnk rich people cannot enter the kningdom of Heaven? Makes playing the lottery a bit dangerous.and people like Cliff Richard misguied at best and foolish at worse.
I would be surprised if Jesus was being that jusdgemental and exclusive.
That is the canonical dimension. If we read the OT as would be “understood by Moses and the Israelites” they did not have as a hermeneutic: “The Cross is the ultimate revelation of God’s character and everything else conforms to it.” The text clearly had one meaning to Moses and company (well, the text comes way after Moses but that point is not important for present purposes) and clearly it has a different or added one for us. So trying to read everything as ancient audiences might have understood it is important but it’s not the only principle at work in interpreting scripture. The first Christian’s absolutely did not employ any such hermeneutic in a rigid fashion. Ancient audiences always seem interested in what can a text teach us now. And I think that means interpretation can evolve and be fluid.
Perhaps you interpret everyone statements uncharitably with a wooden literalism? Jumping onto an imaginary location invented 1900 years later, possibly because Jesus’s saying is too hard otherwise is not for me.
Sounds like the congenial Jesus people reconstruct in their own image. If following Jesus were easy we probably wouldn’t need God’s grace.
I have enough trouble not sinning as a middle class American. I had plenty of trouble when I was poor. Having more money would be nothing new under the sun for me.
And you jumped to a wooden literalism. No one said that wealthy people cannot be saved. Whoever is saved is God’s business. How I run my life is enough for me to worry about. I trust in Him for everyone else. Do you think God will make the wrong decision regarding someone’s eternal fate? I don’t. I’m not even sure that is even logically possible.
If you are going to make the analogy an imposible task then, I am sorry, but you are.
Then why even discuss it?
That might depend on who sets the criterai. I am certain thre will be many who disgree with God’s decisions be they directy involved or not.
I have seen far to much summary judgment on this forum. And I suspect there are many in the world who will get a big surorise. Whether it will be good or not is another matter.
You seem to ignore the possibility of hyperbole which is certainly more tenable than inventing a gate named «the needles eye” from thin cloth 1900 years later. And we don’t have to talk about salvation but I probably the most important topic there is. I thinking discussing is fine but in the end it’s all in God’s trustworthy hands.
Isn’t that what Jesus said plainly? And that’s for people who did might works in Jesus’s name.
Matthew 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Professing Jesus name isn’t some magical incantation like some Christian’s might appear to make it out to be when they quote Paul over and over without tempering all that grace talk with the plain teachings of Jesus. Believing in Jesus requires committing your life to Him and doing God will.
My advice to everyone is “strive to enter.” (Luke 13:34).
Have you even read the text? Jesus says that with man it is impossible!
IIRC Aquinas mentioned it, but also IIRC that’s the first mention found.
Jesus made it an impossible task – it’s what the words mean. The Greek word for “needle” is either a doctor’s needle (Luke) or a sewing needle. And the other word is either “camel” (kamelos) or "cable (kamilos). Either way, His words establish an impossibility.
Or “cable”. It fascinates me that the likely misspelling in the Aramaic results in two English words that also only have one different letter.
I prefer the “cable” reading because it makes a colorful illustration, the image of a sailor with a ship’s hawser trying to put the end through a tiny needle, the same sort of discrepancy as with a speck (or splinter) in the eye versus a log. It sets up an expectation, since ships’ ropes go through loops and such, that is warped to make a point.
Which some here don’t seem to be aware belongs to the text.
A very hard thing since it was considered that the rich were the closest to God, so if a rich man could only get in by God’s action, the same becomes true for everyone!
The problem with hyperbola is how far to take it. It is still unclear whether Jesus is claiming that being rich, in itself, is fatal. from other teaching it is usually the motivation, rather than the result that is paramount,
That is a perversion of what He said. It applies to all, not just the rich. All he was saying is that those who have more, more is expected. Something that is repeated elsewhere. it applies to money as much as talent or faith. Money has its own challenges. Balancing the books is more than tithing or giving everything. It involves understanding the difference between, need, necessity, want and avarice. If you have never had money you could not possibly understand. Money not only breeds money it also sucks it away. You must have heard tales of people who suddenly become rich and then end up worse off than before.
Daniel your questions and observations are right on and need answers and there are answers that alighn the scientific evidence with scripture without compromising Christian theology as explained in the Apostles Creed. As to Adam his bringing sin into the world and Jesus providing reemption for our sins is not compromised by the evidence.
I wish I could address here your questions but the space is too short. It is addressed in my new book Reflections on Genesis subtitled The Alignment of Evidence with Scripture Calls for a reinterpretation of Genesis 1-11 and does so without altering Christian Theology. The book is at the publisher and will be published in the next few months. BioLogos frowns on promotimg my books but if you could somehow supply me with your e mail we could arrange a mailing.
But again, your questions are important and they are the basis for doubts in our young people and contribute to their ultimately leaving the faith.
My belief is that the Bible and science align because both science and the evidence found through science align are also products of God.
No, that’s a different point that He makes elsewhere. In the historical context He was saying no one is able to get to heaven: the rich were considered the closest to God, and His illustration showed it is impossible for them to be saved (according to the current paradigm) and thus that no one can be saved – but that with God it is possible.
Try learning from the text instead of jumping to change Jesus’ words.
I am sorry, but you have a tendency to take each section as self contained. That is the problem with textual criticism. it can’t see the forest for the leaves.
I am not changing Jesus; words at all. You are trying to emphasise one set of words over another, despite the fact that His words were not recorded precisely. You cannot apply journalistic accuracy to Scripture, especially the Gospels. That was never their intent or methodology. You should know that, or is that just some scholarly detail you choose to ignore.
And yet that seems to be your obsession. (Although i seem to remember you once claiming otherwise)
Yes, in first century Judea it was believed that the rich were closer to God.
You’re ignoring this set.
There’s only one set under consideration here. You don’t get to appeal to something else to change the meaning.
I don’t ignore that. I treat them as the type of literature they are – first century biography. I also treat them according to their origin: breathed by God, a status no other literature has. And I treat them according to their status, Spirit-affirmed by the very catholic process of canonization.