About money again

[Kenny_ms]

Wait, where do you get that? The Rich Man was never saved; Scene 2 finds him across the chasm in Hades.

I think Scene 2 is another rich man. Are you talking about the one that wouldn't so much as give crumbs to the poor person at his door, the one who wanted just a drop of water on his tongue?

 

[YosefHayim]

I'll pass, I like to eat, among other things.

Do you do without all three?

Well it depends on what you mean by "hunger pangs". If you mean mere feelings notifying to grab a bite, that's not what I was thinking.

I was thinking this.

Money is the reason there is hunger (or rather starvation) and bill collectors. Work buy consume die lather rinse repeat.

 

[dianegcook]

Please don't misunderstand me. Jesus didn't say it was impossible for a rich man to get to heaven. He didn't say it was wrong to be rich. Neither do I.

In fact there are those whom God blessed with wealth such as Job, Joseph, David, Solomon, and others. The problem is not the wealth. The problem is our greed and where we put our faith.

The rich young ruler claimed to be righteous and Jesus showed him the truth that he wasn't as righteous as he thought. This was evident when He told him that in order to be perfect he would have to get rid of his idol (his wealth) and then follow Him. He went away sad because he realized he couldn't do what Jesus asked.

In 2Cor.8:9 it states
For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich.
2Cor.8:12-15
For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
For I mean not that other men be eased, and he burdened:
But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want, that there may be equality,
As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack.

 

[Kenny_ms]

Well it depends on what you mean by "hunger pangs". If you mean mere feelings notifying to grab a bite, that's not what I was thinking.

I was thinking this.

Money is the reason there is hunger (or rather starvation) and bill collectors. Work buy consume die lather rinse repeat.

I mean how it feels to go hungry/starve.

As far as money being the reason for hunger, Id say you are somewhat right.

There was a time when little money was needed and folks grew their own food, if they didn't do that or work for food, then they needed to.

If on the other hand, one is born into such a bad situation where there was no way they could grow anything or have work, then it's not so much the money being the problem, even though money could be the solution, it's the lack of caring individuals doing what God wants us to do, or people that won't help.

Maybe I should have just cut to the chase to begine with...why do you state money is an illusion?

 

[YosefHayim]

I mean how it feels to go hungry/starve.

As far as money being the reason for hunger, Id say you are somewhat right.

There was a time when little money was needed and folks grew their own food, if they didn't do that or work for food, then they needed to.

If on the other hand, one is born into such a bad situation where there was no way they could grow anything or have work, then it's not so much the money being the problem, even though money could be the solution, it's the lack of caring individuals doing what God wants us to do, or people that won't help.

Maybe I should have just cut to the chase to begine with...why do you state money is an illusion?

I understand the concept of money is a conduit for commerce. But to me the value becomes illusory, no matter how you define. Whether it's backed by gold or not. Then it's the gold that has the imaginary value, that man has placed the value on.

JESUS said the birds neither reap nor sow. That's because God created this wonderful phenomenon called plants. It's crazy. What happens is that these things pop up from the ground, and much of them can be eaten.


Consumerism leaves us knowing to well how to pick the latest Apple phone, and too clueless how to pick an apple from a tree.

 

[KevinK]

I think Scene 2 is another rich man. Are you talking about the one that wouldn't so much as give crumbs to the poor person at his door, the one who wanted just a drop of water on his tongue?

Yes, that's the passage, with Lazuras the beggar, but you think Sc.2 was another rich man? You can't be serious.:shock

And also- and this is a common misconception- it doesn't say the rich man was uncharitable or abusive to Lazuras in any way. In actual fact, it doesn't say how he treated him. The rich man's only mentioned sin was being rich.

19“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

[Classik]

Jason, I apologize, I misread your post to say you were saying one can't be rich and and serve God, when you really said you weren't saying that.

Sorry.

Apology? Sorry? Buy him a soccer ball - football - ball


Not those spherical deflated stuff

 

[Kenny_ms]

Apology? Sorry? Buy him a soccer ball - football - ball

I'm not buying anyone anything, it's my money and I'm keeping it all to myself.

Now back to the topic on money doesn't necessarily corrupt.

Yes, that's the passage, with Lazuras the beggar, but you think Sc.2 was another rich man? You can't be serious.:shock

No, I think that was the scene 2 you were talking about.

Let's make sure we are on the same page here. We are talking about the Rich man where Jesus mentions the Camel and the rich man with Lazarus as the beggar and you are saying those are one in the same, right?. I could be wrong and I'll check it out to be sure but I never thought of those as the same rich man.

On your comment that being rich was the only sin of whatever rich man we are talking about, I will definitely have to take a look at that verse again as being rich in itself is certainly not a sin and I have a feeling I'm going to find what you say is not true but will give you enough of the benefit of the doubt to take a look as I said I would.

 

[WIP]

What confuses me about this set of verses is after knowing the Rich man did enough at least to be saved but not to be perfect, Jesus next went on to the verse about the Camel, which would indicate the rich man wasn't saved/wouldn't enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Maybe it's just me or a bad interpretation by King James but, something seems amiss there.

Maybe we missed something else. Jesus told him to do a couple things. First, he was to get rid of his idols but second and more importantly Jesus said, "Follow me." The rich young ruler walked away....

 

[Deborah13]

In fact there are those whom God blessed with wealth such as Job, Joseph, David, Solomon, and others. The problem is not the wealth. The problem is our greed and where we put our faith.

I agree.
I also believe it can become a source of pride, in one's ability to make money and pride in what it buys, it becomes a status symbol.

By the same token, the man who gives everything away and lives himself in almost poverty, can be just as prideful in his lack. It can become his status symbol too. " Look at me and how righteous and Godly, I am."
It always comes back to the intent of the heart.

 

[Kenny_ms]

As I read it, WIP, (and don't tell OSAS about this) but first Jesus said the rich man was to follow the commandments in order to attain eternal life, to me, that might be the most important part but no matter, and then Jesus told him to be perfect he had to sell it all and follow him and the rich man couldn't/didn't do that part.

So, since the rich man told Jesus he did follow the commandments and I'll assume he was telling the truth (I mean I would tell the truth... he was talking to Jesus and if I was ever going to tell the truth it'd be then) so he, according to Jesus, had attained eternal life as long as he kept it up. But then Jesus went on to explain why it's so hard for a rich man to get to heaven and since every indication was, this rich man was heaven bound, that just didn't make sense to me.

Oh well.

 

[Kenny_ms]

Deb, help me out with this one.

Do you see where my confusion lies?

 

[KevinK]

No, I think that was the scene 2 you were talking about.

Let's make sure we are on the same page here. We are talking about the Rich man where Jesus mentions the Camel and the rich man with Lazarus as the beggar and you are saying those are one in the same, right?. I could be wrong and I'll check it out to be sure but I never thought of those as the same rich man.

I think we're not on the same page, or even chapter. I am referring to Luke 16:19-31. Scene 1 (vs.19-21) is their life on earth, where Lazuras is a poor beggar man and the Rich Man lives in absolute luxury. Scene 2 (vs.22-31) shows where they ended up after they died; the Rich Man is in Hades tormented in fire and desiring even a drop of water. Lazuras is in comfort and bliss at Abraham's side. Obviously this is the same Rich Man. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that this is a real story of two individuals who actually lived and died, and not a parable.

2 chapters later, Jesus delivers a parable "For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25) It doesn't refer to a specific rich man, it's a parable (although possibly inspired by the previous story with Lazuras). So considering this, yes, they are two different rich men, the first one was real, the second one was made up.

I didn't know you were jumping ahead two chapters. But it doesn't matter, as neither one was definitely saved.

 

[KevinK]

On your comment that being rich was the only sin of whatever rich man we are talking about, I will definitely have to take a look at that verse again as being rich in itself is certainly not a sin and I have a feeling I'm going to find what you say is not true but will give you enough of the benefit of the doubt to take a look as I said I would.

This one is going to be much more contentious (I realize that). If you read the passage honestly and without presumption, the Rich Man only committed one sin as recorded- that sin was that he was rich. It does not say he turned Lazuras away, or humiliated him, or ignored him, or secretly harbored contempt. It doesn't say anything about how he treated him. For all we know, Lazuras was invited in for the most sumptuous feast of his life. It simply does not say either way.

But we are not left to guess. Further down, in Scene 2 as I call it, the Rich Man's transgressions are delineated even as he is tormented in the flames of Hades. 25"But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented."

No other sin is stated. Being rich was the sin. I think this is a vital passage for our times because I have heard so many Christians profess their wish for salvation, but also state that they wish to be wealthy in their lifetime. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that this is a very non-Christian attitiude, and one that may very well lead one to damnation. It's probably not impossible for a rich person to be saved, but the odds are not comforting. Would you buy a lottery ticket that would send you to heaven if you win, but condemn you to hell if you lose?

 

[Kenny_ms]

If all this sounds right, I guess we're actually in agreement.

That's what I was thinking as I read your post.....we have no disagreement on that.

On the other post, I'll have to look into it, but I honestly can't imagine that is a problem in itself because there were so many rich people who God thought very highly of, some he even made rich. Wish I were as sharp with the Bible as a lot of you, I'd rattle off some names if I were.

 

[KevinK]

There's a line in a Leonard Cohen song, "only drowning men could seem Him (the Lord)". To find the Lord, you must desire for Him as a drowning man desires air. You must feel a gnawing void that only He can fill. If, however, your life is filled with wealth and possessions, it is very difficult to generate this emptiness. It is slugged up with material distractions that obscure God's ability to truly fulfill you on every level. You've chosen worthless filler over the true substance of God's love.

No, it's not technically impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. It's also not impossible to step off a ten-story buidling and survive. But do you really want to play with those kinds of odds?

 

[Malachi]

This one is going to be much more contentious (I realize that). If you read the passage honestly and without presumption, the Rich Man only committed one sin as recorded- that sin was that he was rich. It does not say he turned Lazuras away, or humiliated him, or ignored him, or secretly harbored contempt.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is to ignore what is IMPLIED in Scripture. We always want everthing stated explicitly or we don't get the point.

The Bible does not have to explicitly state that the rich man ignored or harbored contempt for Lazarus. The fact that Lazarus lay at this man's gate day after day and was given no relief and shown no concern should tell you something. We are not even told whether he received those crumbs from the rich man's table. All we know is that he desired them. So the rich man's sin -- just like the priest and the Levite who ignored the wounded man in the parable of the Good Samaritan -- was that he did not love his neighbour as himself. He was breaking the second greatest commandment EVERY DAY. I trust you get the point now.

 

[KevinK]

There are numerous "implicit" interpretations of this scripture, with lack of neighborly love as reasonable as anything else. Of course I recognize that interpretation, or "point" as you call it.

The problem is that the later verse 25, when the rich man is in Hades and Lazarus with Abraham, fails to support such an explanation. V.25 reads "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." It says nothing about the rich man's attitude toward Lazarus, or explain that he is there because he did not love his neighbor as himself. Here it's not even implied. In fact, Abraham is quite explicit that the rich man's demise was the material wealth that filled his life on earth, and how things are reversed in the afterlife.

I have an uncomfortable feeling that otherwise well-meaning Christians often leverage this particular scripture with implicit interpretations in order to rationalize their secret desire for money and material wealth. "I want to go to Heaven but I also want a lot of money NOW." Jesus speaks against this line of thinking in very certain terms. It's just not a good way to think if your strategy is to make it through the pearly gates some day.

(I understand the importance of reading between the lines, as it were. Yes, I "get" that. I simply disagree in this specific case. I might add how strange this is for me in particular, as I am not a fundamentalist Christian at all. I frequently lean away from literal interpretation of Scripture. Just not in this case.)

 

[jasonc]

That's what I was thinking as I read your post.....we have no disagreement on that.

On the other post, I'll have to look into it, but I honestly can't imagine that is a problem in itself because there were so many rich people who God thought very highly of, some he even made rich. Wish I were as sharp with the Bible as a lot of you, I'd rattle off some names if I were.

King david,abraham,Nicodemus,daniel

 

[Kenny_ms]

The problem is that the later verse 25, when the rich man is in Hades and Lazarus with Abraham, fails to support such an explanation. V.25 reads "But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented." It says nothing about the rich man's attitude toward Lazarus, or explain that he is there because he did not love his neighbor as himself. Here it's not even implied. In fact, Abraham is quite explicit that the rich man's demise was the material wealth that filled his life on earth, and how things are reversed in the afterlife.

Just a thought but if the riches you mention are referred to as "good things" received in the rich mans life, how could the riches be a bad thing?

I still think the point is, it was bad the way the rich man acted with the riches, not that the riches themselves were bad.