• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Are You a Fundamentalist?

Can you think of a specific example from Scripture, Jethro?
Yes, I can. We are presently debating in other threads the apparent contradiction between Paul's "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified" (Galatians 2:16 NASB), and James' "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).

I've heard it said that Martin Luther said that James should not have been included in the canon of scripture because it could not be reconciled with Paul's teaching. But when one understands that 'justified' has two distinct Biblical definitions and Paul is referring to one usage of the word and James is referring to another usage of the word there is no need to throw one or the other out as an uninspired part of the scriptures. Atheists love to claim that the Bible is not the inspired word of God because of this very example.
 
Are most of the members here fundamentalists, i.e. believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Or are there some more like myself, believing the Bible certainly does contain the word of God, but is not in all cases literal truth, being subject to various deviations: to name but a few, parables meant to convey an abstruse subject in simple terms; translational errors; agenda-driven editing or even omissions.

To clarify and don't-get-me-wrong, I believe the Bible to be mostly true, but like just about anything else, the truth must be worked for. It's somewere in-between total religionist fabrication and Supreme Being-guided transmission of Holy Word. It's much closer to the latter, imo, but you still must do a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm just wondering if believers like me are in the minority here.
Hi KevinK, I believe every Scripture is True even to every last word (In it's original script), Not to translations. There is a fourfold way in studying the Scriptures as a born again believer.

  • By the Basic Division of the Scriptures
  • The Synthetic study Scriptures
  • The Analytic study of the Scriptures
  • And the Doctrinal study of the Scriptures
While the Scriptures came in various ways to and through God's servants (It stands as the word of God in all it's parts) And because of it's nature, The Lord Jesus says Scripture can not be broken (John 10: 35) And shall be fulfilled to the smallest degree..
In these last days , God has Spoken to us through the Son. (Heb.1:1)

The biggest reason many do not trust all things in the Scriptures is because they can not understand some things that are hard to understand, so they write them off as not true. But of all things written in Scripture are Spiritual by far. And can not be understood by the natural man. It is not possible.

In Christ
Douglas Summers
 
And i politely reply that you didnt answer the question.

I asked you if what Jesus said was to be interpreted literally or no..

I dont think this question is "rigging" the game", however, if you cant deal with the question, then, im ok if you think your game is rigged.
np
I was not responding to you, I was responding to another poster.
 
Hello,

question for you...
you state that you believe the bible is "mostly true", so, would you mind telling us which parts are not true, in your opinion?
Im assuming that when you use the word "most" that you mean "mostly true but not all of it is true".
OK, here's a passage that first jumps to mind: Matthew 19:24 “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” "Camel" may be a Greek misprint; kamêlos (camel) is a misprint of kamilos, meaning "rope" or "cable". It's a not-so-subtle difference; the former is a clear impossibility, while the latter interpretation poses a very, very, difficult engineering task; difficult, but not impossible, and renders the metaphor a bit more sensical. A rope or cable is in the same vein as a thread, but a large beast-of-burden? The imagery is almost ludicrous. Plus Jesus did not say impossible, He spoke of "easier", though admittedly not a whole lot easier.

The implications here are not trivial. If the Lord really did mean to say "camel", he gave a clear directive that it was basically impossible for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. If "rope" was intended, then that rich man certainly has some hard thinking to do, but I wouldn't have him short-selling his Apple stock just yet.
 
I politely suggest you may be unintentionally rigging the game here a bit. You seem to think that if something is symbolic, it is not "true". I suggest that is not correct - the Bible is full of "true" statements that are made using the literary device of symbol. Clearly, most of the parables do this - the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not about life after death, it is a symbolic way for Jesus to critique the Jewish leadership of his day. But what Jesus says through the use of the symbols in that parable is still "true".
Well, I can definitely tell you that I do NOT discount truth as it emanates from literary devices such as parables. I wanted to establish a distinction between the words "truth" and "literal". If I failed to be more clear, I accept the blame and smite the semantics.
 
Well, I can definitely tell you that I do NOT discount truth as it emanates from literary devices such as parables. I wanted to establish a distinction between the words "truth" and "literal". If I failed to be more clear, I accept the blame and smite the semantics.
Hey no problem, perhaps I misread your post. There are some interesting problems with translating Scripture. When you think about it, even if we agree that the original versions (or whatever copy of the original we have to work from) are "inerrant and inspired", we still have the challenge that translation necessarily involves interpretation. For example, consider these two versions of the same verse from Romans 10:

However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" [Romans 10:16, NASB]

But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message? [Romans 10:16, NIV]

The source texts do not have a specific reference to Israelites. Rightly or wrongly (I happen to think wrongly) the NIV translators interpreted the "they" to be Israelites.

And there are other example in key texts where differences in translation produce radically different meanings.
 
OK, here's a passage that first jumps to mind: Matthew 19:24 “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” "Camel" may be a Greek misprint; kamêlos (camel) is a misprint of kamilos, meaning "rope" or "cable". It's a not-so-subtle difference; the former is a clear impossibility, while the latter interpretation poses a very, very, difficult engineering task; difficult, but not impossible, and renders the metaphor a bit more sensical. A rope or cable is in the same vein as a thread, but a large beast-of-burden? The imagery is almost ludicrous. Plus Jesus did not say impossible, He spoke of "easier", though admittedly not a whole lot easier.

The implications here are not trivial. If the Lord really did mean to say "camel", he gave a clear directive that it was basically impossible for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. If "rope" was intended, then that rich man certainly has some hard thinking to do, but I wouldn't have him short-selling his Apple stock just yet.

I have heard an explaination of "eye of the needle," to mean a tight passage or corridor. Apparently it was a phrase in that time. Still something that would be difficult if not impossible to do. But to continue on the scripture the disciples asked Jesus, after hearing this, then what hope is there for anyone. Jesus answered, humanly speaking it is impossible, but for God nothing is impossible. Whether it was meant as a needle and thread, or a tight pathway the implication is the same. It is impossible without God.

I would count myself as a fundamentalist. Though not likely one who understands it all, just tries to hold on to what I can understand, and stay silent about the things I don't yet know why things are the way they are. To me there is a test of wisdom to discern what in the bible is being applied or quoted in error or misunderstanding, but it is also a test of trust to have faith in the words even if the passages you don't understand don't become clearer.
 
I have heard an explaination of "eye of the needle," to mean a tight passage or corridor. Apparently it was a phrase in that time. Still something that would be difficult if not impossible to do. But to continue on the scripture the disciples asked Jesus, after hearing this, then what hope is there for anyone. Jesus answered, humanly speaking it is impossible, but for God nothing is impossible. Whether it was meant as a needle and thread, or a tight pathway the implication is the same. It is impossible without God.

I would count myself as a fundamentalist. Though not likely one who understands it all, just tries to hold on to what I can understand, and stay silent about the things I don't yet know why things are the way they are. To me there is a test of wisdom to discern what in the bible is being applied or quoted in error or misunderstanding, but it is also a test of trust to have faith in the words even if the passages you don't understand don't become clearer.
I'd heard the tight corridor theory, too, but decided to keep things simple. Regardless, it still emphasizes the inescapability of interpretation, as Drew has already mentioned. Maybe Jesus did mean corridor, but here we are two millennia later most of us saying eye-of-a-needle.
 
I find it often people want to say something is just hyperbole, or just a Parable (Meaning it's not literal, Like Abraham in Hell) I have to look at if there is an Agenda to protect if someone says something in scripture is not exactly literal or even should be there.

I can't think of one parable Jesus told that is not 100% truth, and Abraham in Hell was no Parable, but a fact of something He saw in the spirit realm.

God was more than able to protect, and keep his Word. If the Holy Spirit shows you something not quite right, it's normally just some doctrine a person added (Like ROME and those influenced by ROME) that does not really make that much a difference.

This is a good example. Jesus was talking literally in this.
 
This is a good example. Jesus was talking literally in this.
They all said Amen.


OK, here's a passage that first jumps to mind: Matthew 19:24 “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” "Camel" may be a Greek misprint; kamêlos (camel) is a misprint of kamilos, meaning "rope" or "cable". It's a not-so-subtle difference; the former is a clear impossibility, while the latter interpretation poses a very, very, difficult engineering task; difficult, but not impossible, and renders the metaphor a bit more sensical. A rope or cable is in the same vein as a thread, but a large beast-of-burden? The imagery is almost ludicrous. Plus Jesus did not say impossible, He spoke of "easier", though admittedly not a whole lot easier.

The implications here are not trivial. If the Lord really did mean to say "camel", he gave a clear directive that it was basically impossible for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. If "rope" was intended, then that rich man certainly has some hard thinking to do, but I wouldn't have him short-selling his Apple stock just yet.

(Edited, ToS 2.4: "Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice." Obadiah)

Jesus said:
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(Mat 19:23-24 KJV)

A Rich man will hardly enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Hardly means that there are some that do, but for the most part the rich don't feel as if they need the Lord. We see this effect in King Asa life, He had gotten the same mentality and it upset God when He paid his way through, and not gone to God with the issue.

Jesus also said, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.
I don't care how hard you try, your not going to get a camel through that eye of a needle.
What's that tell you?
Someone that is rich, loves God is not going to enter into the Kingdom of God. Anymore than you stuffing a camel through a eye of a needle.

The disciples understood half of what Jesus said, they saw the impossibility of it.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
(Mat 19:25 KJV)

The Key to the whole thing in what Jesus said next.
Jesus not pausing on what He was talking about or answering their statement said.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
(Mat 19:26 KJV)

(Edited, ToS 2.4, Rudeness. Obadiah)

However, He never said a word about going through Heaven's gates, not getting born again. You seem to have (edited, Obadiah) added that to fit an understanding that He was not even talking about. This is a big problem, because now you seem (Edited, Obadiah) to think it's possible that Jesus did not really mean Camel. (Edited, ToS 2.4, "Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice." Obadiah)
The implications here are not trivial. If the Lord really did mean to say "camel", he gave a clear directive that it was basically impossible for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bible is full of literal devices. Each one has a literal truth behind it. The entire Bible is to be taken "literally" once the literally device has been identifed. "Jesus is the door" john 10:9.. Does that mean he's an oak or maple door? No, but he is the literal door to God. The harder part comes from identifying the devices, but it can be done.
 
They all said Amen.




Your problem Kevin is this secular reasoning. You need to throw that out. The Word is Camel, like thing thing with humps on it's back with 4 legs and fur.

You also misquoted scripture to fit how you understand. It's not a surprise then that you made this thread if that is How you read scriptures.

Jesus said:
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(Mat 19:23-24 KJV)

A Rich man will hardly enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Hardly means that there are some that do, but for the most part the rich don't feel as if they need the Lord. We see this effect in King Asa life, He had gotten the same mentality and it upset God when He paid his way through, and not gone to God with the issue.

Jesus also said, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.
I don't care how hard you try, your not going to get a camel through that eye of a needle.
What's that tell you?
Someone that is rich, loves God is not going to enter into the Kingdom of God. Anymore than you stuffing a camel through a eye of a needle.

The disciples understood half of what Jesus said, they saw the impossibility of it.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
(Mat 19:25 KJV)

The Key to the whole thing in what Jesus said next.
Jesus not pausing on what He was talking about or answering their statement said.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
(Mat 19:26 KJV)


I'll let you figure out what He meant.

However, He never said a word about going through Heaven's gates, not getting born again. You added that to fit an understanding that He was not even talking about. This is a big problem, because now you want to think it's possible that Jesus did not really mean Camel. A very big problem wanting to change the Word to fit your understanding and your standards should be set on the level of the Word, not the Word changed and brought down to your standards of understanding.


Mike, could you go into more explanation about some of your points?

The word was not originally "camel", it was a Greek word that may have meant camel in English.

You mentioned a misquote of Scripture to fit my understanding. First of all, I hate when people do this, so if you think I did it, what part was misquoted? Was it the word "gate"? Right, Jesus didn't say "gate", but does that matter per the discussion? I might add that the reason I started the thread was to draw upon the considerable knowledge resident at this forum. I don't know all the answers, and wished to gain a higher understanding by asking the right people.

I agree that it is the mentality of a rich person that is the main hindrance to entering the kingdom of Heaven, as it is so much more difficult to realize how much we need the Lord. I think we're in major agreement here.

I have already read the entire chapter in question, including the part highlighted in red. I'm missing the pertinence. My original point was that this scripture *may* be subject to a basic translational error (in "camel"). Yes, God could just think it and camels would be falling through needle-eyes and lost souls flying up to Heaven en masse. How does that relate to a translation error?

That's all I have for now, but do you think your syntax is bordering on the ad hominem? You appear to be addressing me directly vs. the ideas I put forth. I think the TOS makes specific reference to this.
 
They all said Amen.




Your problem Kevin is this secular reasoning. You need to throw that out. The Word is Camel, like thing thing with humps on it's back with 4 legs and fur.

You also misquoted scripture to fit how you understand. It's not a surprise then that you made this thread if that is How you read scriptures.

Jesus said:
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
(Mat 19:23-24 KJV)

A Rich man will hardly enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Hardly means that there are some that do, but for the most part the rich don't feel as if they need the Lord. We see this effect in King Asa life, He had gotten the same mentality and it upset God when He paid his way through, and not gone to God with the issue.

Jesus also said, it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.
I don't care how hard you try, your not going to get a camel through that eye of a needle.
What's that tell you?
Someone that is rich, loves God is not going to enter into the Kingdom of God. Anymore than you stuffing a camel through a eye of a needle.

The disciples understood half of what Jesus said, they saw the impossibility of it.

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
(Mat 19:25 KJV)

The Key to the whole thing in what Jesus said next.
Jesus not pausing on what He was talking about or answering their statement said.

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
(Mat 19:26 KJV)


I'll let you figure out what He meant.

However, He never said a word about going through Heaven's gates, not getting born again. You added that to fit an understanding that He was not even talking about. This is a big problem, because now you want to think it's possible that Jesus did not really mean Camel. A very big problem wanting to change the Word to fit your understanding and your standards should be set on the level of the Word, not the Word changed and brought down to your standards of understanding.


Great answer brother mike. :agreed
 
I may need to explain more. When writers of scriptures took quill to papyrus, they used words and concepts from their own cultural setting.


False. They Spoke God's Words, in the language of The Spirit, through the Spirit of Christ that operated in them, to Speak.

1 Peter 1:
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.



 
OK, here's a passage that first jumps to mind: Matthew 19:24 “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” "Camel" may be a Greek misprint; kamêlos (camel) is a misprint of kamilos, meaning "rope" or "cable"..

Well first of all, you are in luck., you are talking to someone who lives at times In Israel.
So, i can tell you that there are camels in Israel, and forgive me for not having immediate access to my photos of Israeli camels or my photos of road signs you find in Israel that tell you to "watch out for camels".

And yes, you are familiar with what im about to write, but, that does not keep it from being true.

So, about that pesky "eye of a needle"...well, because this is a Jewish Jesus, and Jerusalem is Jewish, then lets find out what the "eye of the needle is all about....so that the bible is always proven true and you can trust it with your eternal life.
In Jerusalem, there is an Eye of the Needle Gate.
The eye of the needle mentioned in the book of Matthew was literally one of several smaller gates that provided passage through the city of Jerusalem's massive walls. The Needle Gate was used when the city's main gates were closed at night and used for people entering the city "after hours."
The needle gate was designed as its designed for security reasons so that enemies of the Jews could not simply ride into the city on their camels and attack unhindered. The needle gate was so small that a grown man would have to unload his camel of all that it was carrying and then carefully lead his camel through this small gate. It was a slow and quite difficult task but for security reasons, it was necessary that the needle gate be very small. You can see that it would be difficult for a camel to get through that small door, but not impossible., tho maybe less impossible then that rich man's issue.
 
I guess by the definition in the OP I am fundamentalist, but I prefer not to consider myself that because of the image it brings to mind. And I have also seen fundamentalists and others say there is more to being fundamentalist than simply believing the five fundamentals....

I do believe that the Bible certainly contains sections that are not meant to be taken literally--like the parables, yes--and that this can be derived from the narrative and context. But I believe everything in there definitely is there for our learning and benefit and is true, even if often misinterpreted and also misused by those with an agenda.
 
I guess by the definition in the OP I am fundamentalist, but I prefer not to consider myself that because of the image it brings to mind. And I have also seen fundamentalists and others say there is more to being fundamentalist than simply believing the five fundamentals....

I do believe that the Bible certainly contains sections that are not meant to be taken literally--like the parables, yes--and that this can be derived from the narrative and context. But I believe everything in there definitely is there for our learning and benefit and is true, even if often misinterpreted and also misused by those with an agenda.
Good answer. Especially the part where you actually address the original question!:lol
 
Are most of the members here fundamentalists, i.e. believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture? Or are there some more like myself, believing the Bible certainly does contain the word of God, but is not in all cases literal truth, being subject to various deviations: to name but a few, parables meant to convey an abstruse subject in simple terms; translational errors; agenda-driven editing or even omissions.

To clarify and don't-get-me-wrong, I believe the Bible to be mostly true, but like just about anything else, the truth must be worked for. It's somewere in-between total religionist fabrication and Supreme Being-guided transmission of Holy Word. It's much closer to the latter, imo, but you still must do a little work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm just wondering if believers like me are in the minority here.

You can count me in the fundy camp. Is there any other kind? The Bible was meant to be understood literally, with the literary device, context, history, hermeneutics etc....factored in. "Mostly true?" If the bible we have is not accurate, then God is incompetent and not worthly of following. Yes, the deceiver throws out wrong versions of scripture to lure sheep away (I.e. Johova's Witnesses and many many more) , the best translations exist from the original manuscripts. It most certainty is the word of God. And it contains the only truth on earth that will save a man from the coming seperation. The agenda is singular, with a consistent message.
 
Mike, could you go into more explanation about some of your points?

The word was not originally "camel", it was a Greek word that may have meant camel in English.

You mentioned a misquote of Scripture to fit my understanding. First of all, I hate when people do this, so if you think I did it, what part was misquoted? Was it the word "gate"? Right, Jesus didn't say "gate", but does that matter per the discussion? I might add that the reason I started the thread was to draw upon the considerable knowledge resident at this forum. I don't know all the answers, and wished to gain a higher understanding by asking the right people.

I agree that it is the mentality of a rich person that is the main hindrance to entering the kingdom of Heaven, as it is so much more difficult to realize how much we need the Lord. I think we're in major agreement here.

I have already read the entire chapter in question, including the part highlighted in red. I'm missing the pertinence. My original point was that this scripture *may* be subject to a basic translational error (in "camel"). Yes, God could just think it and camels would be falling through needle-eyes and lost souls flying up to Heaven en masse. How does that relate to a translation error?

That's all I have for now, but do you think your syntax is bordering on the ad hominem? You appear to be addressing me directly vs. the ideas I put forth. I think the TOS makes specific reference to this.

Real quick and the same account can be found in Mark 10. (Edited, ToS 2.4, "Respect where people are in their spiritual walk, and respect all others in general. Respect where others are in their spiritual walk, do not disrupt the flow of discussion or act in a way that affects others negatively including when debating doctrinal issues, in the defense of the Christian faith, and in offering unwelcome spiritual advice." Obadiah) (Edited ToS 2.2, "Do not ... sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature." Obadiah) The Word of God is intact, unchanged, and kept. You can read it knowing it's perfect, and the Holy Spirit can alert you when someone else doctrine or idea came in that was wrong.
"this one goes out by prayer and Fasting"

There is no Greek Error. Camel is Camel, is Camel. A camel can not go through an eye of a needle. Not possible. This is why the disciples were Astonished. They heard camel also with no possibility of the rich making it to Heaven. Jesus was not saying that though, and He was giving them a concept they yet did not fully understand.

I did not understand this Camel, rich man, Eye of the needle thing either, and heard all kinds of explanation on it. It took several years of foundation to get it.

The Rich Young Ruler came to Jesus, the Young man loved God, kept all the commandments. Jesus loved him. (Mark 10) he asks, What may I do to inherit Eternal life.
Jesus did not answer that Directly.......................(Go see how Jesus never let himself be interrupted, but finished what He had to say, then answered questions)

Jesus said, Go sell all you have and give to the poor, then pick up your cross and follow me.
Jesus is giving him the steps to take that will answer his question eventually. That is How God is, He gives you something, then you walk it out by faith and possibly years later come to find what you were seeking becomes clearly known.

The young man walks away.

Jesus said, Exact Greek, and how they heard it How hard is it for a rich man to Rule in Heaven.
No, it's more easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into the Rule and way of God here on earth.

The disciples were focused on the mans question about Eternal life, Jesus never got around to answering that. He is talking about God's will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Heavens operation here on earth. (Matt 6)

The disciples were astonished, who can be saved??? We left all and followed you.

Jesus said, With man, it's impossible, but with God, all things are possible.

What would that be? Jesus is about to tells us.

With putting money first and mans way of obtaining wealth, it's very broken and limited. You won't get 100 fold in mans system. No man has given everything for the gospel sake, the Kingdom's sake (Seek first the Kingdom and then everything is added to you) and not received 100 fold now in this time, and in the time to come, eternal life.

Jesus finished what He was saying, and answered the disciples question. He was not trying to make the rich young ruler broke, He was trying to set him up by putting it all in Heavens treasury and have his heart there with it.

The Kingdom of God (Rule of God and his will in Heaven for Earth) Takes a basket of fish and a few loaves that applies Heavens time and multiplication to it, that it will feed thousands. With man, that's impossible, with God it's very possible.

Takes a small thing of oil the widow had and it keeps pouring until she runs out of containers.

Takes just a tiny bit of meal, and makes more than enough to feed the prophet, and her and her son.

I hope it's at least more clear.

Mike.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top