I don't remember what the original dispute was, really. Both Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:29-30 teach the same thing: that it is by self-denial that we gain life eternal.
How convenient! Well let me remind you.
To: boatbums
Correct both times. "Camel through a needle-eye" is a metaphor for something that would
be impossible without God. Jesus treated wealth the same way in Matthew 19:21:
go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me
The gospel has many examples of rich people giving their wealth away and joining Jesus in poverty; none where the rich man remains rich and is praised. A rich man must end his days in a monastery if he wants to be saved.
2,065 posted on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 8:41:32 AM by annalex (fear them not)
Notice the statement I have bolded? Well, you doubled down on it and even got a little snide.
To: WVKayaker; daniel1212; Elsie; CynicalBear; smvoice; metmom In the end, the story tells us that young man who valued that wealth more than eternal life. That is the moral to that story, not that one must not have wealth
That cannot be because the story concludes "a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven". Read the gospel every once in a while, then post opinions about it.
I will liken that story, that lesson, to the idolater's in the Roman Catholic organization
That would be your opinion. The text however speaks for itself: "everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life", so therefore it is good to join, for example, a monastery if one wants to gain eternal life.
Romans 3: 19
...speaks of the futility of "works of the law" and says nothing about joining or not joining monasteries, donating wealth or anything like that.
2,192 posted on Thursday, September 19, 2013 8:25:17 PM by annalex (fear them not)
You do realize that when a person teaches truth from scripture they don’t forget what the “original dispute” was. It’s that old “Oh! what a tangled web we weave” line that gets one in trouble. Your teachings have been shown to be in error over and over again. It’s gotten to the point where anyone reading these posts will likely discount anything you have to say. May I say that it is you who needs to "Read the gospel every once in a while" without the distortions errors of the RCC clouding.
Then all of your posting replies have worked.