Wether Jesus was referring to the gate or not kind of doesn’t matter, since it was followed with the comment “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Basically meant a rich man could never do it on his own.
It’s kinda amazing how many logical contortions and apologetics there are to attempt to justify a “Jesus didn’t have a problem with wealth” position. It’s almost as if wealthy people are really committed to coming up with some reason why they get to be the exception to the rule.
It is clear in context the “impossible” thing made possible through god would be the wealthy man giving up his possessions. Your interpretation makes the entire story completely pointless and irrelevant, and requires so many logical leaps as to be ridiculous.
I mean, look at Mark 6:19-21 too.
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Jesus was flatly opposed to wealth. There is no way around this, it is consistent across the gospels (and not just the canon ones.)
Yeah, Jesus was against wealth as far how it corrupts people. But if God was completely against it, why would God have made David wealthy? Because its about the person, not the wealth itself.
I’m not denying Jesus’s statements of the issues wealth causes people.
Are we supposed to act as David does? Slaying the Amalekite messenger, adultery with Bathsheba? (Possibly a gay relationship with Jonathan…?) Is what happens to Absalom a happy ending? Is Nathan’s story of the sheep that “pro wealth”?
The authors of the Gospels weren’t the authors of Samuel and Chronicles anyway. The Bible isn’t a unified document with one voice. I’m not really making an argument about what God would think about wealth, but what the historical Jesus would have thought. The evidence is pretty clear there - he wasn’t a fan of it.
Wether Jesus was referring to the gate or not kind of doesn’t matter, since it was followed with the comment “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Basically meant a rich man could never do it on his own.
It’s kinda amazing how many logical contortions and apologetics there are to attempt to justify a “Jesus didn’t have a problem with wealth” position. It’s almost as if wealthy people are really committed to coming up with some reason why they get to be the exception to the rule.
It is clear in context the “impossible” thing made possible through god would be the wealthy man giving up his possessions. Your interpretation makes the entire story completely pointless and irrelevant, and requires so many logical leaps as to be ridiculous.
I mean, look at Mark 6:19-21 too.
Jesus was flatly opposed to wealth. There is no way around this, it is consistent across the gospels (and not just the canon ones.)
Yeah, Jesus was against wealth as far how it corrupts people. But if God was completely against it, why would God have made David wealthy? Because its about the person, not the wealth itself.
I’m not denying Jesus’s statements of the issues wealth causes people.
Are we supposed to act as David does? Slaying the Amalekite messenger, adultery with Bathsheba? (Possibly a gay relationship with Jonathan…?) Is what happens to Absalom a happy ending? Is Nathan’s story of the sheep that “pro wealth”?
The authors of the Gospels weren’t the authors of Samuel and Chronicles anyway. The Bible isn’t a unified document with one voice. I’m not really making an argument about what God would think about wealth, but what the historical Jesus would have thought. The evidence is pretty clear there - he wasn’t a fan of it.