Also
Mark 10:17-25
The Rich Man
As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’ ” He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions. Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 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.”
That was Palm Sunday lol. Fuckin murdered the guy later that week.
Nothing Christians hate more than people who are doing the exact same shit their supposed prophet did.
Almost like they’re worshipping the cross rather than anyone who died on one.
A rope through the eye of a needle, I think they realised it was a mistranslation.
Edit: Biblical Greek “kámēlos” (camel) written in place of Biblical Greek “kámilos” (anchor rope/mooring cable). Neither are going to thread a needle, so I’m not sure what’s bothering everybody.
It is an actual camel through the actual eye of a needle. The “rope” interpretation is a lie made in the past few hundred years to protect rich fucks.
A thick rope does not fit through a needle any more than a camel. If I’d said it was a mistranslation of “silk thread” or something, you might have a point, but nobody is trying to defend the rich here.
No, the lie was that the eye of the needle was the name of a gate that was only a little squeeze for a camel. That was around a thousand years later too. The rope was because the Greek word for camel back then was closer to the word for rope, but due to the euphemism being used in other Jewish texts, we knew they ment camel. A big rope also doesn’t fit, but it’s thematic. A camel isn’t, but it’s ridiculous, and that’s the point. The rope isn’t really thought to be intentional, but if someone claims it’s a gate, it is, and I think we know the name of the italian merchant who made it up.
I think there was a common saying “it’d be easier for an elephant to pass through the eye of a needle” to describe something really difficult. Camel was substituted in regions where they had camels but not elephants. Jesus was memeing irl for his local audience.
did you not read the context? He said to enter heaven rich people must sell their riches. Its obvious he’s saying you can’t be rich and faithful.
That’s obviously what it says. No one is saying anything counter to that. A rope doesn’t fit through the eye of a needle and a camel doesn’t fit through the small gate it may have referred to. It’s all the same meaning. We’re just talking about what the literal thing being said was. They all effectively have the same meaning.
It never reffered to a gate, that didn’t exist at the same time. But camels do supposedly fit through said gate, if they get on their knees.
Of course all bullshit to help rich people feel like being wealthy wasn’t a sin if they were “humble” about it.
It’s easier to argue about something like translation than to think about what it is actually saying. Let alone try to apply it to yourself. Technically, if you live in the US, you’re already “rich” comparatively. No one wants to give up what they have.
I don’t need half the shit I have, and I need some shit I don’t have. I’ll gladly give up a lot of shit. Even mass produced clothing.
Okay but what if I’m, like, really good at exploiting child prison labor?
I can get to heaven then, right? Maybe if I have my child slave prisoners build me a big enough monument?
Child prison labour? You mean you’re providing shelter for orphans and creating jobs for them too? You’re practically a saint according to supply-side Jesus.
Heil (supply side) Jesus!
Everyone’s up in arms because it doesn’t change the meaning at all. The point is its fucking impossible
I mean, in the context of the passage it’s pretty fucking clear that it isn’t an easy thing to do. It doesn’t matter if the saying was slightly off, the message is “give away all your possessions in order to follow Christ”.
Yes, I’m not being combative. A rope doesn’t fit through a needle either.
No, it’s right there in the text. “Sell”, not “give”. You can be rich, you just can’t have stuff.
Checkmate camels
Possibly also “the eye of a needle” meant a gate in Jerusalem. Regardless, it doesn’t mean what people think it means when they first hear it. Still has the same message, just less stupid.
No, it doesn’t. This is a bullshit lie spread by rich fucks. The words are meant literally - the animal camel through the tiny eye of an actual needle.
Not my theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-25583,00.html
It has the same meaning. It was a small gate that a camel couldn’t fit through. It’s just that it may not have meant a literally eye of a needle, just like it may not have meant a literal camel in the previous explanation.
Are you illiterate? At which point did I say you came up with it? You’re spreading a lie, pure and simple
Down voting me for discussing something that is brought up frequently is implying a disagreement with me. I said it’s not my theory because you don’t have a disagreement with me. It’s a piece of trivia people may like to know. It also isn’t some conspiracy to lie about it. It doesn’t change the meaning. It’s just people guessing as to what was meant.
In thousands of years if we no longer have trains, people are going to have to guess about what sidetracked meant. Some people may come to totally different conclusions. Discussing alternative interpretations isn’t bad, especially when no one is arguing with the underlying meaning. Everyone know what was meant and I’ve never seen an argument against it. It’s just some pieces of trivia that it may have been an idiom (that had the same meaning) that was used at the time.
But I just want to be mad and insult someone!
This myth has been pretty thoroughly busted, as has most every other attempt by rich pricks in the last couple thousand years to soften or undermine Jesus’ use of hyperbole.
That does not say it’s busted at all. It only says the citation is often wrong. However, they hyperbole is still identical no matter the translation. Regardless of what the literal translation should be, it says a rich man can’t enter heaven. I don’t know how discussing the literal translation could possibly be used to soften that because it’s pretty clear. I think some people just want a conspiracy where there isn’t one. Literally no one is arguing it doesn’t mean rich men can’t enter heaven.
Yes, people are arguing it doesn’t mean rich men can’t enter heaven. People have been coming up with various interpretations of that Bible passage for that explicit purpose ever since Jesus said it - a couple thousand years - for which we have written records.
The “eye of a needle is a gate in Jerusalem” interpretation was dug up from 11th century writings by televangelists who - believe it or not - used it to argue that you could, in fact, fit a camel through it with great effort.
Yes, people are arguing it doesn’t mean rich men can’t enter heaven.
Who is? I’ve never seen that. I don’t believe that at all. It’s pretty clear what was meant, and this isn’t the only place it’s said.
There weren’t TVs in the 11th century, so no televangelists. I know what you mean by this, but that’s the problem. Language is weird. Terms come and go, and someone from the 11th century wouldn’t know what that means, just as we don’t know exactly what was said by people who wrote the Bible.
I don’t even believe Jesus was a real person. We really don’t have much evidence for that. I sure as hell don’t trust the translation of the King James Bible, which isn’t even the original Hebrew, as to what was said exactly. The meaning is cool, and there’s no arguing what it means, but it could be referring to anything, and idioms come and go and we can only guess what they are.
There weren’t TVs in the 11th century, so no televangelists. I know what you mean by this, but that’s the problem. Language is weird. Terms come and go, and someone from the 11th century wouldn’t know what that means, just as we don’t know exactly what was said by people who wrote the Bible.
You actually didn’t know what they meant by this. They were saying that a televangelist, in the age of television, dug up this interpretation from the 11th century to argue, in the age of television, that the lesson was that it was challenging for the rich to get into heaven but not impossible.
But it does serve the more fundamental point that language is complicated and prone to misinterpretation. And that people will voice confidently incorrect opinions based their misunderstanding.
deleted by creator
why say it after telling a man to sell his possessions and give it to the poor. Jesus literally telling rich people to stop being rich to go to heaven and you think he’s talking about a gate?
Yeah, it was apparently a small gate, and possibly a common saying. We have all kinds of weird idioms, like if you start talking about something off-topic you’re “getting sidetracked.” Why would you be talking about a train?
I didn’t come up with this. It’s a really old explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-25583,00.html
From the article you linked:
The “Eye of the Needle” has been claimed to be a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could not pass through the smaller gate unless it was stooped and had its baggage removed. The story has been put forth since at least the 11th century and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no widely accepted evidence for the existence of such a gate.
It seems so unlikely that this is the case. Why would anyone write a metaphor so convoluted about a gate? It’s an attempt to weasel out of the fact that Jesus outright tells rich people to give away all their shit.
It still means that exact same thing. We use weird idioms all the time that make no sense why we’d talk about them that way. Why do we use sidetrack for a tangent when that’s a term used for trains? We do we call “crazy” people “coocoo”, as in a type of bird? Idioms are strange things.
It’s clear what Jesus meant (assuming he said this at all, but I’m not convinced he’s even real), whatever it is that may have been being discussed. No one is arguing that. It doesn’t matter if camel meant rope, whether the eye of the needle was a gate, or if that translation we read in the king James Bible is accurate (it isn’t). It all says the same thing.
It doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing. The camel/gate (unfounded) interpretation has been stretched to note that a camel COULD fit through the gate on its knees, therefore it’s a metaphor about being on your knees (pray) if you are wealthy and you can go through the gate, i.e., you can be rich if you are pious.
…
100% and they try to change the word “mamon” to “money” in “the love of
moneymamon is the root of all evil.”Which they further interpret as “well, i don’t love money. I just love the things it gets. Therefore, its all good.”
I mean, if Jesus meant money, he would have used the Hebrew word for money and wouldn’t have switched to an aramaic word that means “wealth, over and above what you need to exist.”
However, you can’t reconcile its actual meaning with American style supply-side Jesus.
Another interesting thing is how the bible tries to blame the Rabbis for Jesus death, doing it via the Romans. If the Rabbis wanted Jesus dead, they would have killed him and they would have done so by stoning him to death.
The Romans almost exclusively used crucifixion only on pirates, slaves or insurrectionists. Last I checked, there were no reports of Jesus being a slave or a pirate.
Palm Sunday was seen as the start of a movement and the Romans conspired to kill him for it and nip it in the bud. The rest is spin. Presuming Jesus was real in the first place, of course.
I think I agree on the first part Mamon represents a personification of wealth/greed which a Priest might say is really just another way of saying a love of self (e.g. pride). A message in this parable is “to whom much is given much will be required”. As well as the “a man cannot serve two masters” bit.
Jesus existed. He’s perhaps the most documented pre-modern figure.
Romans crucified serious offenders. That includes the categories you provided as well as thieves, murderers etc
The Pharisees brought Christ to the Romans because they considered him a heretic and demanded his execution. Pontius Pilate found no fault in him and offered Barrabas instead. The Pharisees rejected Barrabas and Pilate, fearing rebellion, granted their wish and washed his hands of it all. While the Romans crucified Christ the Pharisees were his accusers.
This. The Pharisees were the 1% of their time and place. They had it all. Wealth, power, political clout. And only they were permitted to enter the Holy of Holies and lay eyes upon the Word of God. They prayed in public, gave public alms, claimed to be the most pious and righteous of all and preached a message about how they were the chosen ones and everyone else should serve them. Then, along comes this barefoot guy from across the Galilee who is believed to be born of a virgin, claiming to be the Son of God. They’re all waiting for him to place crowns upon their heads and cement their position as God’s Chosen. Then he goes and does the exact opposite. He preaches a message counter to their narrative, calls them out for their false piety, tells them God is pissed at them for their showy displays, and the masses are just eating it up. They couldn’t let that stand!
Could you imagine someone, anyone, doing that today? In the US, many politicians and celebrities claim to love and serve God. They make huge displays of their holiness, and pray in public, and give to the poor in full display, and spin this narrative of being more virtuous than everyone else. Then someone comes along with a counter message. That man/woman/person would be dead within a week!
Oh, but what a week of joy it would be!
What we need to do here is find a way to liquify the camel’s body and increase the diameter of the eye of the needle. Then it’s really just a matter of patience.
Perhaps we can simply process the camel and spin it into string?
Once that’s over with we can use the same method to mass-produce Camel McNuggets.
You sonovabitch, I’m in!
Hanging in there 👍
Thats what I thought of immediately! :D
Blessed are the cheese makers. 🙏
Can’t wait for season 3!!
Which show is it?
Good Omens on Amazon
“Good Omens” on Amazon Prime - originally a book by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman!
Except now the 2nd and 3rd seasons have moved past the book and are supposed to be based on ideas that Terry Pratchett had but never wrote into novels.
That would be from good omens season 2 (positive its good omens 70% sure it’s season 2 edit, it was season 1.), it’s produced and released by Amazon, based on works by Patchett and Gaiman (they had all 3 seasons storyboarded before patchett passed, and everything is produced with Gaimans final approval iirc) they are incredibly different stories, and both entirely consuming to watch.
I know they mapped out 2 seasons. Didn’t Gaiman have to come up with season 2 to properly wed season 3 to the end of season 1?
I’m definitely looking forward to season 3 either way.
I didn’t know that it was already hashed out before Pratchett died, that’s good
definitely season 1, episode uh, like 4, maybe 5, the one with all the Crowley & Aziraphaels backstory
I hate when I’m on the wrong side of confidence, even if I was only 70% sure XD
Thanks for the correction!
Is season 3 even coming?
Tis. Gaiman has said he’s writing it now. Will come out next year with any luck…
Oh heck yeah, I’d kinda given up hope
He also said he’s the son of God. If you say that today in the right place, you’ll still die for it.
Depends on how charismatic you are. You do it right people will build giant gold-plated cathedrals in your honor and kill each other for the pleasure of seeing you smirk.
Actually he did not. The whole “Jesus is the literal son of god” thing was invented by the churches some hundreds of years after Jeus was dead. In the same wake Jesus never spoke about the trinity, that god would have three aspects. That is also an invention of the churches to make christianity more palateable to polytheist pagans, in the same way that christmas was put next to the winter solstice and easter onto spring where it was mixed with pagan fertility deities, quite literally being named after the Germanic goddess of spring Eostre in Englisch or Ostera in German where easter is called Ostern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God_(Christianity)
I am the son of God.
It’s true, I’m God
Oh wow, nice to meet you.
Always been meaning to ask, why is your craftsmanship shite?
:3
Can verify, i’m God’s husband.
Hi honey <3
Hello god, please explain bone cancer in babies
:3
hmm lux, light, you know who’s the light bringer? Lucifer
you sleezy trickster smh my head
Oh, Lucie’s just my boyfriend
well if you say you’re getting visions from god tho
“I’m God, your great great […] great grandmother did something i didn’t like so i hate you and plan to torture you for all eternity. Please execute me slowly and painfully so that i can forgive you!”
Everything about this is theologically incorrect.
We live with the consequences of Adam’s sin (death) which is a mercy because it means we can become sanctified and enter the kingdom of God instead of being eternally fallen. God loves you but hates your sin. God does not torture you. The experience of God is heaven for those that are sanctified but hell for those that are not. A poor analogy would be that a football game is the same for everyone but only those for a certain team are happy with the outcome. (Just to give an idea of how a shared experience can be different for different people) Finally Christ didn’t ask anyone to execute him but he knew they would. He lived a perfect, sinless life. His death allowed him to enter hades and conquer death thereby freeing man from the damnation of sin and grafting all of mankind into the new covenant which allowed all to be saved through Christ.
Adam was already mortal
Genesis 3:22
(22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (23) Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Had they eaten the fruit of the second tree, then they would live forever, they were already mortal.
Genesis 2:15
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
A bit weird to get mad at someone for doing something bad/evil, when they literally didn’t know what good and evil was and thus wouldn’t know that disobeying god was a bad thing.
And also strange that god lied here, seeing as they ate the fruit and didn’t die (yeah yeah “spiritual death”, why wouldn’t god just say that if that’s what he meant)
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.
— John 2:15–16
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
— Matthew 21:12–13
"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.
— James 5:1-6
Jesus would have been on Lemmy
Jesus seems like a cool dude.
Glory to God
What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it is the meek who are the problem!
I don’t know if you get to call yourself the King of Kings and then complain about the Romans coming after you for being too meek.
Its a cute riff, but crucifixion tended to be reserved for high profile rebellions (the Spartacus Revolt, the Maccabees seizing Judea, your suspected Carthaginian spies and interlopers) not vague niceties.
why does david tenant have snake eyes
He’s portraying Crowley in Good Omens.
😮
is this any good? I usually dont bother watching adaptations of things I like.
David Tennant is stellar as usual, can’t wait for the next season.
next season? I thought it was a one-off series. Did they not complete the book in s1?
Season 2 is out and there is a third season on the way. They’re beyond the book, obviously, but Gaiman co-wrote it.
They’re beyond the book, obviously, but Gaiman co-wrote it.
Yeah, and it shows. The distinct lack of Pratchett is evident even when they where still covering the material in the book.
it feels like fanfiction, but honestly i don’t mind it at all. When you have the budget and the audience to make your fanfic into TV series then why not?
Just to add-on, Gaiman has said that he and Pratchett had discussed some of the ideas that he’s working with. Take what you will from that.
Very good show, both seasons. I recommend it.
First season was a spectacular adaptation. Second was good.
First season was decent. After that they made up a new story so it’s original content.
Its not strictly a new story. They based it on notes that Gaiman and Terry Pratchet had compiled for an unreleased sequel. Also, Gaiman has been the lead creative designer on the TV series, so at the absolute worst you could claim its half an original story.
“Allow people to have autonomy. Your body, your choice!”
Need a citation for that one chief, I’m pretty sure it says your body is a temple to be respected and cared for.
I wasn’t quoting other people.
Then why the quotation marks?
Because I’ve said that before
deleted by creator
I mean, he and his closest followers/the apostles really thought the world would be ending sometime in the next hundred years and that his resurrection was step one of the Jewish apocalypse (which would eventually include a physical kingdom of God on earth)
The messages of kindness, love, and redistribution of wealth are great, but they’ve kinda been muddied since I found out it was started as a doomsday cult.
That being said: be kind, love one another, and distribute your wealth anyway
Does “be kind to each other” include attacking them with a whip?
Yes. He was justified in exposing their corruption and hypocrisy in a way they would understand. His house of worship was turned into a “den of thieves” where merchants were taking advantage of poor widows etc
where merchants were taking advantage of poor widows etc
Where are you getting that from? The bible says nothing of the sort. It says “And He entered the temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying on the temple grounds” Both selling and buying. Jesus cast out the poor old widows who just wanted to worship the way God told them to. The vendors were selling offerings that people could burn as part of their worship and animals to be sacrificed. They were providing goods that were necessary for worship at the temple. It is not at all clear what Jesus was complaining about.
If we take it literally, I see two options:
- He did not like that there were burnt offerings and animal sacrifices, but Jesus alludes to the temple being a house of prayer, which is a reference to Isaiah 56:7 “their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” The burnt offerings and animal sacrifices were intended by God.
- He just didn’t like commerce within the temple. He complains about the temple being turned into a den of thieves, not about there being thieves at all. Which means as long as the den of thieves was outside the temple Jesus would have been fine with it.
As far as I see, neither of these justify assault.
Where are you getting that from?
Luke 20:45-47 Beware of the Scribes 45 Then, in the hearing of all the people, He said to His disciples, 46 “Beware of the scribes, who desire to go around in long robes, love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts, 47 who devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation.”
If we take it literally, I see two options:
Poor exegesis incoming… I recommend getting an Orthodox Study Bible and reading the footnotes that follow along with each verse. The interpretation from the Church isn’t isolated to scripture but includes church tradition and the analysis of the Church Fathers.
The short version, however, is that the “money changing” was an exploitative racket the Pharisees used to enrich themselves.
who devour widows’ houses
OK, I’ll give you that. It’s a full chapter after he drove out the buyers and sellers, with only irrelevant preaching in between, but it’s in there.
Poor exegesis incoming
Of course it is poor exegesis, I started with “If we take it literally”.
Orthodox Study Bible
What? Because orthodox is the one true version of Christianity. You say it yourself it is an interpretation, and no interpretation is more authoritative than any other.
“money changing” was an exploitative racket
You could make the argument that any business is exploitative, inside the temple and outside the temple, but he just kicked them out of the temple, he didn’t outright ban commerce. This is leaning toward option 2. Now, how does that justify assault?
What? Because orthodox is the one true version of Christianity.
Yes exactly. It is the one true church of apostolic origin and is over 2000 years old. It is the supreme authority on the interpretation of text. When you read about the Pentecost Christ ascends into heaven and leaves the apostles in charge of his body (e.g. the church). The patriarchs of the Orthodox church can trace their episcopate origins back to those very same apostles. You can look it up.
Of course it is poor exegesis, I started with “If we take it literally”.
You don’t have the historical, theological, philosophical, anthropological or linguistic expertise to begin to properly exegete the text. You and many others are simply taking a modern perspective and forcing it onto a document that was a contemporary of Nero. Since the days of Christ Church Fathers have spent their lives reading, translating and exegeting texts. Misinterpretation isn’t just a problem with those outside the faith but also heterodox Protestants and to a lesser extent Catholics. Mormons think they have the right interpretation for example. People don’t realize that there is and always has been a final authority on the scriptures and it’s the Orthodox church and it’s traditions. You can read the canons from early synods and ecumenical councils if you want to see what I mean.
Much the same as punching a nazi.
Morally justified, for those wondering.
wtf It’s really not the same.
They didn’t say weather he was whipping when he said it, so maybe?
“Keep it Swayze.”
