131–140 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along with this unknown source (usually referred to as Q). It seems fairly reasonable then to assume it was a literary device made by the author of Mark - his writing is actually pretty good as far as allegory goes - that was subsequently lifted near verbatim by the la…
Non contentious? Don’t a large portion of Christians believe the Bible is divine and any words included are there because of God?
Clearly, the author knows about the importance of supporting argument with sources... so I have the impression that they might be in bad faith.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will fight someone in public over the time turner thing. No it's not a closed loop, yes they could've used it to kill Voldemort.
It's not a closed loop? It's been quite some time since I read the Prisoner of Azkaban but I was under the impression that was one of the limits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is dangerous. Logos has quite a few of his works in their library. I'm never going to get through my ever-growing backlog. And I still have yet to start on John Walton's Lost World series. Thanks! Haha!
Rabbi Tarfon said, “Where there is no bread, there is no Torah; where there is no Torah, there is no bread.” it’s an interesting book that tells you to put the book down and go out and check in on your neighbor. So don’t let your backlog get in the way of that virtuous cycle.
I've been tossing around the idea of doing a topical Bible study night/meal once a month with some neighbors who are interested (or at least tangentially so) along with some folks from Sunday school. A friend of mine who has been struggling with sin and faith suggested it. I feel a sense that your comment is being used to prod me a bit further.
One of the fears I've had (just tossing this out there for advice I probably already know but need to hear/read from someone else) is stepping on toes. I KNOW that if I just teach from the word it isn't a problem—or rather it isn't a problem unrelated to conviction, but going back to your earlier recommendation we all have difficulty with the idol of self-perception. I probably need to re-read 1 and 2 Timothy, because I've sometimes had issues with timidity in the face of those who are older and dealing with scripture.
An example: Explaining the nature of the word "elohim" as an ontological term (I'm a Southern Baptist) to a church elder who was convinced it's strictly another name for God was a good exercise but somewhat difficult, even with a Hebrew-English interlinear in hand to show him precisely how it is used in situ throughout the text. I managed, but my comparative youth against an elder and his obstinate refusal to see the word for what it was set me back somewhat in deciding whether to go forward with, shall we say, giving bread to the spiritually hungry.
I guess the only way to feed anyone is to start by making a meal. Thank you for the encouragement!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree! Where this argument pops up is through the modern myth that "eye of a needle" was a reference to a particular gate in Jerusalem (or something similar; there are different variants of this claim). If this were true, then THAT would turn the passage from an impossibility to something that's rather exceedingly difficult , thus pleasing rich people. Rope versus camel doesn't dramatically change the outcome as mu…
> Where this argument pops up is through the modern myth that "eye of a needle" was a reference to a particular gate in Jerusalem The article says this theory appears as early as the 11th century, which isn't quite "modern."
Either way, the analogy is anachronistic to the text, which is probably the better way to render it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was fairly non-contentious [0] that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (almost exclusively) from the author of Mark's work, along with this unknown source (usually referred to as Q). It seems fairly reasonable then to assume it was a literary device made by the author of Mark - his writing is actually pretty good as far as allegory goes - that was subsequently lifted near verbatim by the la…
Non contentious? Don’t a large portion of Christians believe the Bible is divine and any words included are there because of God?
(The phrase you're looking for is "divinely inspired", but Christianity also teaches that all of world history is also divinely inspired. It's a very broad category.)
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.
Furthermore, the image of a camel trying to get through the eye of a needle is extremely memorable, which was very important for transmission in the oral culture of the time. Notice that this expression is still used regularly in many languages.
————
Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me.”
But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
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. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
————
In Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, the word for camel is gamlo (ܓܐܡܠܐ) while the word for rope is gamla (ܓܐܡܠܥ). Mixing these up would be an easy mistake to make. Matthew and Luke both took some info from Mark but also took some info from the Q source and their own sources. Since all three have this same wording, it is likely the error came through Mark.
I just googled, and the things are even less clearer - looks like it isn't just a rope, it specifically means thick rope made out of camel hair.