Seems like it would be pretty difficult to get a camel through a needle eye. (That “oh he was actually referring to a gate” is modern horseshit apologetics designed for rich Christians to justify having money btw, totally made up.)
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.)
Seems like it would be pretty difficult to get a camel through a needle eye. (That “oh he was actually referring to a gate” is modern horseshit apologetics designed for rich Christians to justify having money btw, totally made up.)
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.)