End of Times

[Bill]

If you look at the whole text of the "Sheep and the Goats" you will see that the central theme is not just ignoring those in need, our neighbours, but of ignoring Christ himself, for Christ so identifies with the Hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the sick, the imprisoned and the Stranger that he says when you help them you help him, and when you ignore them you ignore him. If we turn away from those in need, we not only contravene the second greatest commandment, "To love our Neighbour as ourselves", but we also contravene the first Commandment " To Love God with all our Heart, body, mind and Soul", To see it as just a rejection of those in need is to miss the central point, if we ignore the needy we ignore Christ himself and will be judged accordingly.

Again i think youre missing the central point of this parable, it wasnt just the ignoring of Lazarus that sent the rich man to Hell, in Luke 16: 25 Abraham gives the reason why the rich man ends up in hell, " Remember that in your lifetime you received good things and Lazarus Evil things, but now he is comforted and you are tormented", the mere fact of leading a Rich, comfortable life will condemn you to Hell. This point was also re-iterated in Lukes version of the Sermon on the Mount where in Luke 6:24 Christ said" But woe unto you that are rich for you have received your consolation". This was also illustrated in the story of Zacchaeus where Christ only pronounced Salvation AFTER Zacchaeus had given his wealth away.


Jesus just doesnt say its "hard" for a Rich man to enter Heaven, he says its impossible, for how many Camels do you know that could fit through the eye of a needle, although in response to his Disciples saying" Who then can be saved", Christ says "with God everything is possible". I was told that the response of the disciples was triggered by their thoughts, based on OT teachings , that Wealth and Riches were a sign of being blessed by God. So in effect they were saying, if the rich cant be saved then who can, to which Christ replied, "with God all is possible". The message is clear, even though Christ loves the rich ruler and was saddened by his reluctance to give up his riches, the possibility of the rich entering Heaven is practically zero.

No, read them again , the message is clear, the possession of riches, and the neglect of the poor will condemn someone to Hell. In the Parable of the Sower Christ warns of the Deceitfulness of riches..... choking the word and preventing it from coming to fruition" and in Matthew 6 :19-24 Christ says " Do NOT store up Treasure on Earth, for where your Treasure is your Heart will be also........No man can serve 2 masters,.... you CANNOT serve God and Mammon". You cant be Rich and a follower of Christ, the 2 are incompatible, but the "deceit of riches" that Christ speaks about makes us want to believe that we can.

I've already answered those points above, except to add that God regards "All that men value as an Abomination in his sight", and what do men value more than Wealth and riches and the power and comforts they bestow?. and of course theyre warnings, but warnings with automatic damnation that we need to heed or face the consequences that are plainly spelt out by Christ

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

""Jesus just doesnt say its "hard" for a Rich man to enter Heaven, he says its impossible, for how many Camels do you know that could fit through the eye of a needle, although in response to his Disciples saying" Who then can be saved", Christ says "with God everything is possible". ""

I was just wondering if you knew what that was exactly, the eye of the needle. It's the name of the man door next to the main door of the entrance to Jerusalem. It was possible to fit a camel through the man door, but you had to strip it of everything to do so. But in those days stripping a camel completely naked was literally unheard of.

 

[farmerjoe]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

""Jesus just doesnt say its "hard" for a Rich man to enter Heaven, he says its impossible,

Wrong big guy. Get yourself a sensible hermeneutic and by all means ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES!

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.

https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat19.pdf

Do you ever change your mind?

 

[KingJ]

If you look at the whole text of the "Sheep and the Goats" you will see that the central theme is not just ignoring those in need, our neighbours, but of ignoring Christ himself, for Christ so identifies with the Hungry, the thirsty, the homeless, the sick, the imprisoned and the Stranger that he says when you help them you help him, and when you ignore them you ignore him. If we turn away from those in need, we not only contravene the second greatest commandment, "To love our Neighbour as ourselves", but we also contravene the first Commandment " To Love God with all our Heart, body, mind and Soul", To see it as just a rejection of those in need is to miss the central point, if we ignore the needy we ignore Christ himself and will be judged accordingly.

Again i think youre missing the central point of this parable, it wasnt just the ignoring of Lazarus that sent the rich man to Hell, in Luke 16: 25 Abraham gives the reason why the rich man ends up in hell, " Remember that in your lifetime you received good things and Lazarus Evil things, but now he is comforted and you are tormented", the mere fact of leading a Rich, comfortable life will condemn you to Hell. This point was also re-iterated in Lukes version of the Sermon on the Mount where in Luke 6:24 Christ said" But woe unto you that are rich for you have received your consolation". This was also illustrated in the story of Zacchaeus where Christ only pronounced Salvation AFTER Zacchaeus had given his wealth away.


Jesus just doesnt say its "hard" for a Rich man to enter Heaven, he says its impossible, for how many Camels do you know that could fit through the eye of a needle, although in response to his Disciples saying" Who then can be saved", Christ says "with God everything is possible". I was told that the response of the disciples was triggered by their thoughts, based on OT teachings , that Wealth and Riches were a sign of being blessed by God. So in effect they were saying, if the rich cant be saved then who can, to which Christ replied, "with God all is possible". The message is clear, even though Christ loves the rich ruler and was saddened by his reluctance to give up his riches, the possibility of the rich entering Heaven is practically zero.

No, read them again , the message is clear, the possession of riches, and the neglect of the poor will condemn someone to Hell. In the Parable of the Sower Christ warns of the Deceitfulness of riches..... choking the word and preventing it from coming to fruition" and in Matthew 6 :19-24 Christ says " Do NOT store up Treasure on Earth, for where your Treasure is your Heart will be also........No man can serve 2 masters,.... you CANNOT serve God and Mammon". You cant be Rich and a follower of Christ, the 2 are incompatible, but the "deceit of riches" that Christ speaks about makes us want to believe that we can.

I've already answered those points above, except to add that God regards "All that men value as an Abomination in his sight", and what do men value more than Wealth and riches and the power and comforts they bestow?. and of course theyre warnings, but warnings with automatic damnation that we need to heed or face the consequences that are plainly spelt out by Christ

Rad, I think the discussion is getting blurred because you are collapsing several distinct categories into one.

First, I agree with you that Scripture teaches that thoughts, intentions, words, and deeds all matter morally. Christ makes that clear when He says that lustful intent and unjust anger reveal the sinful condition of the heart. No disagreement there.

However, acknowledging that the heart can be sinful is not the same as saying that all sins are equal in weight or consequence. Scripture repeatedly distinguishes between different kinds and degrees of sin.

Under the Law, some sins required restitution, some required sacrifice, and some carried the death penalty. That alone demonstrates that God does not treat every sin identically in terms of consequence. The principle of proportional justice runs throughout Scripture.

Even Jesus speaks of “greater sin” (John 19:11), and in Luke 12:47–48 He explicitly teaches that some servants will receive many stripes and others few, depending on knowledge and responsibility. That makes no sense if all sin is morally identical in judgment.

Second, regarding wealth, you are again turning warnings into universal condemnation.

If simply possessing wealth automatically condemns someone, then Abraham, Job, David, and Joseph of Arimathea would all be condemned, yet Scripture clearly presents them as faithful servants of God. The issue Christ repeatedly identifies is not wealth itself but trust in wealth and hardness of heart toward others.

The rich man in Luke 16 is condemned because he ignored suffering directly at his gate. The parable exposes a heart that valued comfort over mercy. It is a warning about spiritual blindness, not a blanket statement that material wealth itself sends someone to hell.

Finally, your interpretation unintentionally creates a logical problem: if all sinful thoughts are judged exactly the same as the completed act, then moral distinctions collapse entirely. Scripture does not teach that. Instead it consistently recognizes intent, action, knowledge, and responsibility as factors in judgment.

So the real issue remains the one I raised earlier: repentance requires recognizing sin and turning from it. But recognizing sin also requires distinguishing between different kinds of moral failure rather than flattening them all into one category.

 

[Twistie]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

""Jesus just doesnt say its "hard" for a Rich man to enter Heaven, he says its impossible, for how many Camels do you know that could fit through the eye of a needle, although in response to his Disciples saying" Who then can be saved", Christ says "with God everything is possible". ""

I was just wondering if you knew what that was exactly, the eye of the needle. It's the name of the man door next to the main door of the entrance to Jerusalem. It was possible to fit a camel through the man door, but you had to strip it of everything to do so. But in those days stripping a camel completely naked was literally unheard of.

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. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Hope all's well!

⊂⁠(⁠•⁠‿⁠•⁠⊂⁠ ⁠)⁠*⁠.⁠✧

 

[Bill]

Wrong big guy. Get yourself a sensible hermeneutic and by all means ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES!

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.

https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat19.pdf

Do you ever change your mind?

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom.

I think you need to go understand the history of the man door with the main door of a town in the Middle East. The main door being the door that swings open for everyone to come through including beasts of burden and everyone else. Where they'd have smaller doors for entry if that was unnecessary.

If you look up the term "eye of the needle" you'll find what I'm talking about.

 

[Rad]

I don't know which translation you're using but the word for hard is a bad choice. It is the word HARDLY and it means squeamishly. The KJV is not a good translation on this one. Jesus doesn't say it's impossible. The

Mat 19:23
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat19.pdf

KJV "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

"Jesus" primary search results are listed below along with dictionary aides, FAQs, and Lexiconc.

www.blueletterbible.org

Have you ever thought of acquiring a sensible hermeneutic?

I should have made myself clearer, when Christ said "Its easier for a camel to go through the Eye of a Needle than a Rich man enter Heaven", he was inferring that its impossible, for how many camels do you know that could fit through the Eye of a Needle?, but as ALL things are possible with God,.......... if you take this story together with Christs other teachings on the Rich it seems clear to me that they are condemned and will receive eternal punishment just for their possession of wealth.

 

[Rad]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom

""Jesus just doesnt say its "hard" for a Rich man to enter Heaven, he says its impossible, for how many Camels do you know that could fit through the eye of a needle, although in response to his Disciples saying" Who then can be saved", Christ says "with God everything is possible". ""

I was just wondering if you knew what that was exactly, the eye of the needle. It's the name of the man door next to the main door of the entrance to Jerusalem. It was possible to fit a camel through the man door, but you had to strip it of everything to do so. But in those days stripping a camel completely naked was literally unheard of.

I've heard this many times Bill and i think its been debunked many times as well, heres a link for one commentary on the myth, https://www.cambridge.org/core/serv...edles-eye-gate-myth-theophylact-or-anselm.pdf that being said , in Marks Gospel 10:25 Christ says" Its easier for a camel to go through AN eye of a needle.......", and in Lukes gospel Luke18:25 Christ says " Its easier for a Camel to go through A Needles eye .....", i dont want to get too hooked up on translation, but both of these texts would seem to invalidate the "Eye of the Needle" gate theory,...... apparently "The term "eye of a needle" is used as a metaphor for a very narrow opening. It occurs several times throughout the Talmud." and it would seem that Christ was just following a long tradition to describe a very narrow opening.

 

[farmerjoe]

Rad said,

I should have made myself clearer, when Christ said "Its easier for a camel to go through the Eye of a Needle than a Rich man enter Heaven", he was inferring that its impossible,

You are the one inferring that it's impossible. If you would simply use an interlinear or even Strongs you'd see this. Most translations use the word 'easier'. But AH! Christians like yourself simply cannot admit making mistakes. The word impossible is a terrible translation.

https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat19.pdf

Matthew 19 :: King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 19 - And it came to pass, [that] when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

www.blueletterbible.org

 

[farmerjoe]

May Jesus fill us with his love and wisdom.

I think you need to go understand the history of the man door with the main door of a town in the Middle East. The main door being the door that swings open for everyone to come through including beasts of burden and everyone else. Where they'd have smaller doors for entry if that was unnecessary.

If you look up the term "eye of the needle" you'll find what I'm talking about.

I understand the eye of a needle. That's not what I'm arguing. It's the simplicity of the terminology. The word is NOT impossible. It's the word easier. The gate inferred here isn't tall enough for a camel to go through. Is that really that difficult to understand?

 

[Rad]

Rad, I think the discussion is getting blurred because you are collapsing several distinct categories into one.

First, I agree with you that Scripture teaches that thoughts, intentions, words, and deeds all matter morally. Christ makes that clear when He says that lustful intent and unjust anger reveal the sinful condition of the heart. No disagreement there.

However, acknowledging that the heart can be sinful is not the same as saying that all sins are equal in weight or consequence. Scripture repeatedly distinguishes between different kinds and degrees of sin.

Under the Law, some sins required restitution, some required sacrifice, and some carried the death penalty. That alone demonstrates that God does not treat every sin identically in terms of consequence. The principle of proportional justice runs throughout Scripture.

Even Jesus speaks of “greater sin” (John 19:11), and in Luke 12:47–48 He explicitly teaches that some servants will receive many stripes and others few, depending on knowledge and responsibility. That makes no sense if all sin is morally identical in judgment.

Perhaps its because the tone of our discussion is now more tolerant and respectful KingJ, i see more clearly that i'm in agreement with what youre saying, and if it appeared in our past discussions that i disagreed with the idea that there are different degrees and consequences of sin then that was not my intention. I think our only contention was the role that thoughts play in sinning and how those thoughts will be judged by God.

Second, regarding wealth, you are again turning warnings into universal condemnation.

If simply possessing wealth automatically condemns someone, then Abraham, Job, David, and Joseph of Arimathea would all be condemned, yet Scripture clearly presents them as faithful servants of God. The issue Christ repeatedly identifies is not wealth itself but trust in wealth and hardness of heart toward others.

Abraham, Job and David were under OT law and teaching, where wealth was not regarded as sinful. But Christ brought a fulfillment of Gods law in his teachings of the New Testament where it seems to me that the mere possession of wealth is condemned. Joseph of Arimathea is interesting, a rich man but a devoted follower of Christ, could it be he is one of the very few Christ describes as being saved due to " with God, everything is possible", and i dont know the historical background , but could it be Christ needed this "Rich mans" tomb to ascend from, would the poor have access to a resting place such as that?, but whatever the reason, given the cumulative weight of Christs teaching on the rich it seems dubious to base their salvation on one individual, unless you know of other instances where Christ exonerated the Rich

The rich man in Luke 16 is condemned because he ignored suffering directly at his gate. The parable exposes a heart that valued comfort over mercy. It is a warning about spiritual blindness, not a blanket statement that material wealth itself sends someone to hell.

Theres a saying" God has provided for every mans need, but not for their greed", in an equitable and just world there would be sufficient resources for everyone to enjoy a life where their needs are met, but if someone, or a group of people, a community, a country, take more than there fair share of the worlds resources then theres less to go round for others, and the more some take, the more others suffer, "the comforts of the rich are built upon the suffering of the poor", i understand this to be the reason why Christ condemns the rich, for they are the direct consequence of why the poor suffer, of course theres other reasons, but fundamentally , one mans wealth is another mans poverty, and the more you take the greater the suffering on your soul. So mere possession is enough to condemn, how do you interpret Christs words in Luke 6 :20" Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of Heaven" and Luke 6:24 " But woe to you that are rich for you have received your consolation"?.

Finally, your interpretation unintentionally creates a logical problem: if all sinful thoughts are judged exactly the same as the completed act, then moral distinctions collapse entirely. Scripture does not teach that. Instead it consistently recognizes intent, action, knowledge, and responsibility as factors in judgment.

I'm not sure if that follows, you can still have intent behind a thought, why youre thinking that way, the genetic and social factors that have made you into the person you are, the knowledge that shapes your thoughts and your personal responsibility, all these are present just as much as in the action, in fact most, if not all actions are preceded by thoughts, and the same criteria of Gods judgement will be applied to both.

So the real issue remains the one I raised earlier: repentance requires recognizing sin and turning from it. But recognizing sin also requires distinguishing between different kinds of moral failure rather than flattening them all into one category.

Agreed!.

 

[Rad]

Rad said,



You are the one inferring that it's impossible. If you would simply use an interlinear or even Strongs you'd see this. Most translations use the word 'easier'. But AH! Christians like yourself simply cannot admit making mistakes. The word impossible is a terrible translation.

https://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat19.pdf

Matthew 19 :: King James Version (KJV)

Matthew 19 - And it came to pass, [that] when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

www.blueletterbible.org

But this is what we're here for , to learn, to listen to others opinions and if we agree, change our views accordingly,........ do you believe Christ condemns wealth and riches and those that possess them?, ........and yes thats my inference, together with the inference of his disciples, that its impossible for a rich man to enter heaven, taken from Christs "eye of the needle" warning, but to also remember that Christ said " With God everything is possible",

 

[KingJ]

Perhaps its because the tone of our discussion is now more tolerant and respectful KingJ, i see more clearly that i'm in agreement with what youre saying, and if it appeared in our past discussions that i disagreed with the idea that there are different degrees and consequences of sin then that was not my intention. I think our only contention was the role that thoughts play in sinning and how those thoughts will be judged by God.

Abraham, Job and David were under OT law and teaching, where wealth was not regarded as sinful. But Christ brought a fulfillment of Gods law in his teachings of the New Testament where it seems to me that the mere possession of wealth is condemned. Joseph of Arimathea is interesting, a rich man but a devoted follower of Christ, could it be he is one of the very few Christ describes as being saved due to " with God, everything is possible", and i dont know the historical background , but could it be Christ needed this "Rich mans" tomb to ascend from, would the poor have access to a resting place such as that?, but whatever the reason, given the cumulative weight of Christs teaching on the rich it seems dubious to base their salvation on one individual, unless you know of other instances where Christ exonerated the Rich

Theres a saying" God has provided for every mans need, but not for their greed", in an equitable and just world there would be sufficient resources for everyone to enjoy a life where their needs are met, but if someone, or a group of people, a community, a country, take more than there fair share of the worlds resources then theres less to go round for others, and the more some take, the more others suffer, "the comforts of the rich are built upon the suffering of the poor", i understand this to be the reason why Christ condemns the rich, for they are the direct consequence of why the poor suffer, of course theres other reasons, but fundamentally , one mans wealth is another mans poverty, and the more you take the greater the suffering on your soul. So mere possession is enough to condemn, how do you interpret Christs words in Luke 6 :20" Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of Heaven" and Luke 6:24 " But woe to you that are rich for you have received your consolation"?.

I'm not sure if that follows, you can still have intent behind a thought, why youre thinking that way, the genetic and social factors that have made you into the person you are, the knowledge that shapes your thoughts and your personal responsibility, all these are present just as much as in the action, in fact most, if not all actions are preceded by thoughts, and the same criteria of Gods judgement will be applied to both.

Agreed!.

Your claim that wealth itself becomes sinful only after Christ does not hold up biblically. The Old Testament repeatedly warns about the moral dangers of riches long before the New Testament. For example, Proverbs 11:28 warns that those who trust in riches will fall, and Deuteronomy 8:17–18 cautions Israel not to let prosperity produce pride and forgetfulness of God. So the moral principle Christ teaches is not new; He is intensifying and clarifying something already present. The consistent theme is trust in wealth and hardness toward others, not mere possession.

Second, your interpretation of Luke 6:20–24 treats “poor” and “rich” as purely economic categories, but Luke’s broader teaching shows it is primarily a spiritual contrast. Many people are materially poor yet spiritually proud, and many believers in scripture possessed resources while remaining faithful servants. The beatitude highlights dependence on God, not a universal condemnation of anyone who possesses resources.

Third, the statement that “one man’s wealth is another man’s poverty” is a philosophical claim about economics, not something the bible itself asserts. Scripture condemns greed, oppression, and indifference, but it never teaches that the mere existence of wealth automatically produces injustice.

So the distinction remains important: wealth can be spiritually dangerous, and Christ warns about it strongly, but that is not the same thing as saying wealth itself is inherently sinful. The warnings are meant to expose misplaced trust and hardened hearts, not to declare every person with material resources automatically condemned.

 

[KingJ]

I'm not sure if that follows, you can still have intent behind a thought, why youre thinking that way, the genetic and social factors that have made you into the person you are, the knowledge that shapes your thoughts and your personal responsibility, all these are present just as much as in the action, in fact most, if not all actions are preceded by thoughts, and the same criteria of Gods judgement will be applied to both.

Yes, actions are often preceded by thoughts. No one disputes that the heart and intentions matter morally. Jesus makes that clear when He exposes anger and lust as revealing the condition of the heart. But recognizing that thoughts can be sinful is not the same as saying a thought and a completed act carry the same weight in judgment.

Scripture repeatedly preserves that distinction. For example, Luke 12:47-48 explicitly teaches that judgment varies depending on knowledge and responsibility. Some receive “many stripes” and others “few.” That only makes sense if different levels of guilt and consequence exist. As stated previously, Jesus speaks of “greater sin” in John 19:11, which certainly implies degrees of moral responsibility.

 

[Rad]

Your claim that wealth itself becomes sinful only after Christ does not hold up biblically. The Old Testament repeatedly warns about the moral dangers of riches long before the New Testament. For example, Proverbs 11:28 warns that those who trust in riches will fall, and Deuteronomy 8:17–18 cautions Israel not to let prosperity produce pride and forgetfulness of God. So the moral principle Christ teaches is not new; He is intensifying and clarifying something already present. The consistent theme is trust in wealth and hardness toward others, not mere possession.

I was referring to the mere possession of wealth as being sinful only after Christs teachings, so let me re-state the reasons why i believe this to be, First, theres the story of the rich ruler, who Christ tells to give all his wealth to the poor and thus store up treasure in Heaven, and following on from his refusal Christ utters the famous phrase, " Its easier for a camel to go through the Eye of a Needle than a Rich man enter Heaven", Secondly, we have the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, where the rich man ends up in hell and is told by Abraham " Remember that in your lifetime you received good things and Lazarus evil things. Now he is comforted and you are tormented", Thirdly, in Lukes version of the Sermon on the Mount Christ says "But woe unto you that are rich, for you have received your consolation", and i do see that as material wealth and not spiritual. Fourthly, it is only AFTER Zacchaeus said "Behold lord, half of my goods i give to the poor and if i have taken anything from any man by false accusation i restore him fourfold", an action that given his profession of chief Publican would probably have left him penniless, that Christ pronounced, "This day has Salvation come to this house", and Fifth, Christ said to the Publicans, who were covetous" You are they which justify yourselves before men, but God knows your Heart, for that which is highly esteemed among men is an ABOMINATION in the sight of God", and as i said previously , what do men value more than wealth and riches and the comfort and power they bestow. ,

Second, your interpretation of Luke 6:20–24 treats “poor” and “rich” as purely economic categories, but Luke’s broader teaching shows it is primarily a spiritual contrast. Many people are materially poor yet spiritually proud, and many believers in scripture possessed resources while remaining faithful servants. The beatitude highlights dependence on God, not a universal condemnation of anyone who possesses resources.

Third, the statement that “one man’s wealth is another man’s poverty” is a philosophical claim about economics, not something the bible itself asserts. Scripture condemns greed, oppression, and indifference, but it never teaches that the mere existence of wealth automatically produces injustice.

Its not so much a "philosophical claim about economics " as the application of basic maths, at any given time there's an amount of resources in the world. The more one person or group take for themselves over and above their fair share the less there is for the rest, and the more thats taken, the less there is to share. The wealth and comfort of the rich is built upon the suffering and despair of the poor. The biblical application of this is that its impossible to claim to love your neighbour as yourself, to treat others as you'd want to be treated, while you live in comfort and they suffer in poverty, especially when their poverty is as a direct result of your amassing of wealth.

So the distinction remains important: wealth can be spiritually dangerous, and Christ warns about it strongly, but that is not the same thing as saying wealth itself is inherently sinful. The warnings are meant to expose misplaced trust and hardened hearts, not to declare every person with material resources automatically condemned.

Christ doesnt just warn about wealth , he condemns it and those that possess it. He warns about the deceitfulness of riches that choke the word and states this clear warning,
19;“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20;But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21;For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22;“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23;But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
24;“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

1. Matthew 6:22 The Greek for healthy here implies generous.
2. Matthew 6:23 The Greek for unhealthy here implies stingy.

Christ doesnt say " Be careful when storing up wealth for it may possess your heart", no, he says "DO NOT STORE UP TREASURE ON EARTH..... FOR WHERE YOUR TREASURE IS YOUR HEART WILL BE ALSO",

Taken together, it is clear to me that its the mere possession of wealth that will condemn , for in a world where hundreds of millions of men, women and children suffer lives of horrendous poverty and deprivation, we cannot claim to love either God or others, if we possess the wealth that could help them, but refuse to do so, and the more wealth we possess, the greater the condemnation will be

 

[Rad]

Yes, actions are often preceded by thoughts. No one disputes that the heart and intentions matter morally. Jesus makes that clear when He exposes anger and lust as revealing the condition of the heart. But recognizing that thoughts can be sinful is not the same as saying a thought and a completed act carry the same weight in judgment.

Scripture repeatedly preserves that distinction. For example, Luke 12:47-48 explicitly teaches that judgment varies depending on knowledge and responsibility. Some receive “many stripes” and others “few.” That only makes sense if different levels of guilt and consequence exist. As stated previously, Jesus speaks of “greater sin” in John 19:11, which certainly implies degrees of moral responsibility.

I agree, but just to clarify, 2 men, identical circumstances, except one kidnaps, tortures and murders a child, the other one dreams about doing it but only the fear of punishment stops him, do you think they'll receive equal punishment or will the one that carried out the act be punished the greater.?

 

[KingJ]

I was referring to the mere possession of wealth as being sinful only after Christs teachings, so let me re-state the reasons why i believe this to be, First, theres the story of the rich ruler, who Christ tells to give all his wealth to the poor and thus store up treasure in Heaven, and following on from his refusal Christ utters the famous phrase, " Its easier for a camel to go through the Eye of a Needle than a Rich man enter Heaven", Secondly, we have the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, where the rich man ends up in hell and is told by Abraham " Remember that in your lifetime you received good things and Lazarus evil things. Now he is comforted and you are tormented", Thirdly, in Lukes version of the Sermon on the Mount Christ says "But woe unto you that are rich, for you have received your consolation", and i do see that as material wealth and not spiritual. Fourthly, it is only AFTER Zacchaeus said "Behold lord, half of my goods i give to the poor and if i have taken anything from any man by false accusation i restore him fourfold", an action that given his profession of chief Publican would probably have left him penniless, that Christ pronounced, "This day has Salvation come to this house", and Fifth, Christ said to the Publicans, who were covetous" You are they which justify yourselves before men, but God knows your Heart, for that which is highly esteemed among men is an ABOMINATION in the sight of God", and as i said previously , what do men value more than wealth and riches and the comfort and power they bestow. ,

Its not so much a "philosophical claim about economics " as the application of basic maths, at any given time there's an amount of resources in the world. The more one person or group take for themselves over and above their fair share the less there is for the rest, and the more thats taken, the less there is to share. The wealth and comfort of the rich is built upon the suffering and despair of the poor. The biblical application of this is that its impossible to claim to love your neighbour as yourself, to treat others as you'd want to be treated, while you live in comfort and they suffer in poverty, especially when their poverty is as a direct result of your amassing of wealth.

Christ doesnt just warn about wealth , he condemns it and those that possess it. He warns about the deceitfulness of riches that choke the word and states this clear warning,
19;“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20;But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21;For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22;“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23;But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
24;“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Read full chapter

Footnotes​

1. Matthew 6:22 The Greek for healthy here implies generous.
2. Matthew 6:23 The Greek for unhealthy here implies stingy.

Christ doesnt say " Be careful when storing up wealth for it may possess your heart", no, he says "DO NOT STORE UP TREASURE ON EARTH..... FOR WHERE YOUR TREASURE IS YOUR HEART WILL BE ALSO",

Taken together, it is clear to me that its the mere possession of wealth that will condemn , for in a world where hundreds of millions of men, women and children suffer lives of horrendous poverty and deprivation, we cannot claim to love either God or others, if we possess the wealth that could help them, but refuse to do so, and the more wealth we possess, the greater the condemnation will be

Rad, the difficulty with your position is that it turns wealth itself into sin, but Scripture consistently condemns the misuse of wealth, not its mere possession. The passages you cite actually reinforce that distinction when read in context.

First, the rich ruler is not a universal command to all wealthy people. Christ identifies the specific idol of that man’s heart and addresses it directly. If the command “sell everything” were absolute for all believers, then it would apply equally to Peter after Pentecost, to Lydia, to Joseph of Arimathea, and others who possessed resources and were never told to abandon them. The lesson is about attachment, not mere ownership.

Second, in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, the text never says the rich man is condemned simply for being wealthy. The narrative highlights his indifference to suffering at his gate. Abraham’s words contrast their earthly circumstances, but the moral failure shown throughout the story is the rich man’s lack of mercy. If wealth itself condemned, then every wealthy figure in Scripture would automatically be lost, which Scripture never teaches.

Third, when Christ says “woe to you who are rich” in Luke, He is addressing those who already have their consolation, meaning they trust in present comfort rather than in God. This is consistent with the broader biblical theme: misplaced trust, not possession. The same structure appears in the beatitudes, they describe spiritual posture, not economic status alone.

Fourth, Zacchaeus is not declared saved because he becomes poor, but because he demonstrates repentance. He restores what he defrauded and becomes generous. The emphasis is on a transformed heart, not on reaching a specific economic level. If salvation required poverty, Christ would have required him to give away everything, but He did not.

Fifth, your “fixed amount of resources” argument is not biblical and also not accurate in practice. Scripture never teaches that one person’s wealth automatically creates another’s poverty. Wealth can be gained through productivity, trade, and stewardship that benefits others. The Bible condemns oppression and exploitation, but it does not equate wealth itself with injustice.

Finally, Matthew 6 does not condemn possession; it condemns storing treasure as one’s ultimate trust. Christ’s statement “you cannot serve God and money” is about service and allegiance, not about having any material resources at all. One can possess wealth without serving it, just as one can possess authority without worshipping power.

If mere possession of wealth automatically condemned, then Abraham, Job, David, and others, all described as blessed by God, would be in violation. Scripture never resolves that tension by saying wealth itself is sinful. Instead, it consistently warns that wealth is dangerous because of the heart, not inherently evil in itself.

 

[KingJ]

I agree, but just to clarify, 2 men, identical circumstances, except one kidnaps, tortures and murders a child, the other one dreams about doing it but only the fear of punishment stops him, do you think they'll receive equal punishment or will the one that carried out the act be punished the greater.?

Both are sinful. The second man’s heart is corrupt, but the first not only desires evil, he acts on it and causes real harm. Scripture consistently treats those as cumulative, not identical. That’s why Jesus speaks of “greater sin” and why Luke 12 describes different degrees of punishment.

There is also a real moral escalation when a thought becomes an action. In the mind, the idea is abstract, but carrying it out requires deliberately continuing despite resistance, fear, suffering, and harm to another person. The act involves repeated choices to proceed in the face of that reality, which deepens responsibility and therefore increases guilt.

 

[Rad]

Rad, the difficulty with your position is that it turns wealth itself into sin, but Scripture consistently condemns the misuse of wealth, not its mere possession. The passages you cite actually reinforce that distinction when read in context.

First, the rich ruler is not a universal command to all wealthy people. Christ identifies the specific idol of that man’s heart and addresses it directly. If the command “sell everything” were absolute for all believers, then it would apply equally to Peter after Pentecost, to Lydia, to Joseph of Arimathea, and others who possessed resources and were never told to abandon them. The lesson is about attachment, not mere ownership.

KingJ, i believe that Christ did indeed "turn wealth itself into sin" for the reasons i will explain.

First though, i think we should distinguish between having possessions and being rich, Christ talks of the Rich and storing up Treasure, i dont think these terms can be equated with basic possessions, although saying that, i believe we will be judged as to whether or not we're Rich on the basis of not where we stand in our own communities or country even, but where we stand in relation to Gods world. And with nearly 800 million men, women and children struggling to survive on less than a few $'s a day, and thousands dying daily from hunger and easily preventable disease, most of us in the Developed world would fall into the category of The "Rich".

That being said, your first point about Christs words to the Rich Ruler not being "a universal command to all wealthy people", he calls on him to give his wealth to the poor and thus "store up treasure in heaven", but then when the Rich ruler refuses Christ extends the principle from the individual to the Rich as a group saying, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom of God, For its easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man enter Heaven", Christ doesnt say "some rich people", he classifies them as one group, the Rich, and treats them accordingly, i think you are making a distinction based more on your own philosophical views than on the actual words of Christ who made no such distinction.,

Second, in the account of the rich man and Lazarus, the text never says the rich man is condemned simply for being wealthy. The narrative highlights his indifference to suffering at his gate. Abraham’s words contrast their earthly circumstances, but the moral failure shown throughout the story is the rich man’s lack of mercy. If wealth itself condemned, then every wealthy figure in Scripture would automatically be lost, which Scripture never teaches.

I think youre doing the same here as well, Abraham says to the Rich man in Hell" Son, remember that you in your lifetime received good things , and Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted and thou tormented", he does not say, "Because of your indifference to the poor man at your gate you are condemned", no, because of the rich mans wealth he could enjoy his life of "good things", and for this alone he was condemned.

Third, when Christ says “woe to you who are rich” in Luke, He is addressing those who already have their consolation, meaning they trust in present comfort rather than in God. This is consistent with the broader biblical theme: misplaced trust, not possession. The same structure appears in the beatitudes, they describe spiritual posture, not economic status alone.

But Christ doesnt say that, you are putting words into his mouth again, interpreting what isnt there , Christ says quite simply " Woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation", which ties in with the treatment of the Rich man in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, and also "blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God", which again ties in with the treatment of Lazarus, the rich are condemned and the poor exalted. And i would agree that a similar structure appears in Matthews version of the Sermon on the mount, with The Beatitudes reflecting a more Spiritual aspect, the 2 versions are complementary, presenting both the Spiritual and Earthly position Christ expects of his followers.

I'm afraid i havent got time to finish the rest KingJ, but will return to this probably on Thursday.

 

[Christ4Ever]

We must obey the laws of the land only in as much as they dont contravene the teachings of Christ, if they do, then our allegiance is not to Man made Laws but to the law of God. Acts 5:29
Acts 5:29
Then Peter, and the other apostles, answered and said
Peter began, as the mouth of the apostles, being the eldest man, and very bold and zealous; and the rest followed, or joined, with him in what he said:
we ought to obey God rather than men;
this is said in answer to the charge of disobedience to the orders and commands of the council: men, civil magistrates, and ecclesiastical rulers, are to be obeyed in things which are not repugnant to the will of God; but in things that are, God is to be obeyed, and not men. God had commanded by an angel, that the apostles should go to the temple, and there preach the doctrines of the Gospel; the sanhedrim had forbid them to speak and teach in the name of Christ; who were now to be obeyed? God, and not men: from whence it

We are commanded by Christ to follow his teachings and teach others the same, to do any differently would be to build our lives on Sand rather than on the solid rock of Faith. Matthew 7 24:27.

Good brother Steve, as it should be. Now how you interpret or apply those very commandments set to us by Jesus Christ makes all the difference. Wouldn't you agree with that?

But if Christ is Sovereign then surely so are his teachings, if Christ is your Lord then you cant claim to follow him if you disregard his teachings.

And yet people don't following them, or apply them in their lives do they?

I'm not saying it can be "built by rote", we do what we do because we Love God, but that relationship of love has to built upon the solid foundations of Christs teachings.

Amen!

I believe that Christs teachings should permeate into every aspect of my life, there are no divisions, no lines of demarcation, whether it be the spiritual, the moral, the political or the economic, for if we give our lives to Christ then it should be our whole lives, not just parts of it. And yes, legally, i am a "citizen of the UK, but i was referring to citizenship more in terms of allegiance. i feel no allegiance to the UK, or to any country, and definitely not the World itself, my allegiance is to Christ alone, and i try to follow his teachings wherever the need arises in Gods World.

Agreed. Try as with might that isn't the reality, is it?

No i couldnt run as a Democrat Brother Nick, i couldnt tie myself to any particular political Party for to do so would mean having to accept policies that i couldnt support, 20 years ago i was quite heavily involved in politics and found that the compromises i had to make in achieving a common aim were destroying the very Christian principles i hold so dear. And this is the problem with owing allegiance to any earthly group, it means compromise, and that compromise eats away at the soul until your faith becomes meaningless. This is why Christ said " You cant serve 2 masters,... you cannot serve God and Mammon", and what could be more Mammon then politics whose principle goals are power and Money.
But i'd be interested to know why you call Democrats "Ungodly", are you implying that Republicans are in some way "Godly"?. For myself, i regard us ALL as "ungodly", for which of us can stand before God on our own merits, and the world we have created is fundamentally Evil, ruled by greed, self interest and an indifference to the suffering we cause.
Just 2 examples that come to mind, after cutting billions of $'s in overseas aid last year which could cost 14 million lives over the coming years, i saw that the "War" Secretary is asking Congress for another $200 billion to pursue the war in Iran, and that in his first year in office Donald Trump had personally made $1.4 billion in selling his own merchandise, from watches at $500, to his own Broad band services, to personally signed Guitars at $11000 each and signed copies of the Bible at $1000 each. Are these the actions of a "Godly" administration.
It seems to me that power corrupts, and the more power , the greater the corruption, so no, i'd never get involved in politics, i support and reject individual policies where they agree or conflict with Christs teachings, but to give my allegiance to any political party would be to align myself with that power and corruption, and i have enough sins on my soul without adding more.

You could just run as an Independent, or the Christian Party! Better yet as "Steve".
The issue becomes what you construe as "Master". In your work you are responsible to others, even being the boss/owner, makes you responsible to others, i.e. customers etc. It's not blanket "Master" to perceive all positions of authority/power as being ones "Master", and a liar to the actual "Master" in Christ Jesus our God by so doing.

I'd get to the particulars of cost cutting etc. Don't conflate what a government does and enterprise of a private nature. President Trump doesn't lose the ability to allow others to use his name to sell merchandise. If you are so inclined you can buy it, but I don't, and I appreciate the job he is doing as President! lol

Now it's the war in Iran! Dear Brother, it will always be one thing or another that he does. Do, I like war? No. Would Iranian Government kill you and your loved ones without a second thought? Of course. We can talk this war, and I can even show where Christianity is starting to explode in Iran because of it, but it's not just one thing or another as choices. Are you certain it is not God's will for this war to happen or is He not Sovereign?

Off to go witness...bowling!
Love you brother!
God bless you and yours brother Steve!
YBIC/Moderator
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[Twistie]