Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

kiwihellenist.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 298 posts

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#141

Post by danans »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #126
542458 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. This is illustrated in John 9, where the disciples ask Jesus about a blind man: His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born b…

> Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. And yet, here we are again. The prosperity gospel which a large chunk of not only American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscrib…

> American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them.

That's far older than modern American evangelicalism. I'd have to guess it goes back to the beginning of the institutional Church in Rome.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#142

Post by tsimionescu »

ranprieur wrote: post #24

I don't buy the idea that changing camel to rope is about pleasing rich people, because a rope can still nowhere near get through the eye of a needle. But a rope is qualitatively the same kind of thing as a thread; so if camel is the right word, the message is that what gets into the kingdom of God is a whole different kind of thing than money.

The article explicitly quotes the original source for this kamilos theory as claiming exactly this:

> ‘camel’: he doesn’t mean the pack animal here, but the thick rope, with which sailors bind anchors. He shows that the situation isn’t absolutely permanent, but makes the matter extremely difficult for him in future, and for the present, close to and neighbouring on impossibility.

So, even if you don't agree with Cyril's reasoning, it is clear that he believed that "camel through the eye of a needle" would have meant complete impossibility, but "rope through the eye of a needle" actually allows a slither of a chance.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#143

Post by cyberax »

autoexec wrote: post #103
kragen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in english the pejorative term is 'cult', which often trips up second-language speakers from languages where it's the other way around

To help avoid future misunderstandings, which modern languages use "cult" without the usual negative implications?

Russian and Ukrainian are a couple of examples. "Sect" is pejorative, the polite version is derived from the Latin word "confession".

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#144

Post by felipeerias »

OscarCunningham wrote: post #11

I've never really understood the sentences following this quote. > '[…] It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.' They were greatly astounded and said to one another, 'Then who can be saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.' Why do the apostles seem to think that…

The passage basically says that rich people can not save themselves. This contrasted with other religions at the time where the wealthy and powerful could organize large games and sacrifices to please the gods while living a life of debauchery.

The "eye of a needle" has been making rich people anxious since the beginning of Christianity. Early Christians eventually addressed these anxieties by stating that rich people could only be saved if they became pious and devoted their wealth to help others.

Peter Brown's "Through the Eye of a Needle" is an amazing book about all of this.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#145

Post by tsimionescu »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #102
ranprieur wrote: post #24

I don't buy the idea that changing camel to rope is about pleasing rich people, because a rope can still nowhere near get through the eye of a needle. But a rope is qualitatively the same kind of thing as a thread; so if camel is the right word, the message is that what gets into the kingdom of God is a whole different kind of thing than money.

I dont understand why people refuse to take this line as literally as possible - A rich person has as much chance of entering heaven as a camel has of passing through the eye of a needle. Its just a humorous way of saying "fat chance" ... why read into it so much. Never made any sense to me.

The reason why people don't want to take this line literally is very simple: they don't want to believe that they can't live a life of luxury and still go into heaven. If you're both a believer and rich, you can either live with the cognitive dissonance, renounce your faith, or just reinterpret the precepts you don't like to suit you.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#146

Post by tsimionescu »

danans wrote: post #141
UncleOxidant wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, this is a major point in the gospels and one of the things that was subversive at the time that's a bit lost on modern audiences. At the time, the prevailing belief was that good things happens to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. And yet, here we are again. The prosperity gospel which a large chunk of not only American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscrib…

> American but also global evangelicals (specifically the pentecostal subset) subscribe to suggests that the rich are rich because God has blessed them. That's far older than modern American evangelicalism. I'd have to guess it goes back to the beginning of the institutional Church in Rome.

Not to the same extent. Many officially recognized saints were extremely poor, and virtually all of the ones who had been rich were only canonized after (at least purportedly) giving all of their wealth away later in life. Nuns and monks, the holiest and most pious worshippers, must take vows of poverty. Clearly, the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox and other old institutionalized churches) preach that poverty is at least accepted, if not necessarily required. Of course, the church higher ups have always been rich and powerful, but that is not the official doctrine.

The explicit belief that you can't be poor and beloved by God is a pretty modern, and pretty extreme, twisting of the meaning of the Bible.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#147

Post by tsimionescu »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #65
NobodyNada wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's look at the context before the quote too: Mark 10:17-27 (NLT) > As Jesus was starting out on his way to Jerusalem, a man came running up to him, knelt down, and asked, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" > "Why do you call me good?" Jesus asked. "Only God is truly good. But to answer your question, you know the commandments: 'You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not st…

I would say that you are correct about the New Testament. I’m not sure there is a central point in all the books of the Old Testament.

Almost by definition, when you talk about the meaning of "the Bible", you mean the New Testament, and that it either explicitly supersedes or at least recontextualizes any teachings in the Old Testament. If you want to talk about the meaning of the Old Testament taken individually, you either talk about it directly, or talk about the Torah instead of the Bible.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#148

Post by tsimionescu »

autoexec wrote: post #103
kragen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in english the pejorative term is 'cult', which often trips up second-language speakers from languages where it's the other way around

To help avoid future misunderstandings, which modern languages use "cult" without the usual negative implications?

I believe English is actually one of the only ones where cult has a negative connotation, and where sect does not. French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, German, Dutch, Polish, Romanian, Swedish, Russian - all of these use "cult" to mean any religious group, even in official language ("the Catholic cult"), and all use "sect" to mean "a fringe, possibly dangerous, religious or quasi-religious group" ("the members of that sect that poisoned themselves").

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#149

Post by tsimionescu »

monlockandkey wrote: post #46
timbit42 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, some aspects of Islam seem to be based on the views of the Ebionites, an early Christian sect who used a Hebrew version of Matthew (instead of Greek) and whose beliefs about Jesus (not God, didn't actually die, etc.) ended up in Islam.

Islam isn't based on Christianity or Judasim. Rather is the the revival/continuation of the one message which is monotheism, given to every prophet and messenger throughout history. It would not be unfound for overlap in teachings between the prophets as they are ultimately upon one religion.

I think there are a great many prophets and messengers throughout history that preached polytheism of one kind or another. There is even one prophet who preached that no gods exist, or at least that they are unimprotsnt to the struggle for a good life - Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.

Re: The camel, the rope, and the needle's eye

#150

Post by tsimionescu »

mastazi wrote: post #133

This aricle does a good job in presenting sources in support of its first argument (it was a camel, not a rope) but then it presents exactly zero evidence to support the conclusion (the error was intentional, the goal was to appease rich people). Clearly, the author knows about the importance of supporting argument with sources... so I have the impression that they might be in bad faith.

The quote from the original source of the "rope" claim, Cyril, is pretty explicit:

> ‘camel’: he doesn’t mean the pack animal here, but the thick rope, with which sailors bind anchors. He shows that the situation isn’t absolutely permanent, but makes the matter extremely difficult for him in future, and for the present, close to and neighbouring on impossibility.

Cyril explicitly considers that replacing "camel" with "rope" changes the meaning of the passage from complete impossibility to something that is extremely hard but still conceivable. What more evidence do you need that this was the reason?

Post reply on HN