4 ms·

In context, the new believers were frequently put out of their homes and sent destitute, so being willing to give it all up was a requirement. That said, there

by Natsu 3y ago

In context, the new believers were frequently put out of their homes and sent destitute, so being willing to give it all up was a requirement. That said, there isn't a whole lot of evidence what is meant here and a rope makes more sense than a camel, because a rich man can become poorer by giving it up just as a rope can be made thinner (by taking away most of the fibers), whereas a camel just can't manage at all. It wouldn't be too surprising if it was an obscure bit of slang among a less literate group meant for a joke, but there are a few other words that seem to have been coined by gospel writers that have seen lots of litigation, e.g. arsenokoites which seems to echo a construction from Leviticus.

jdbernard 3y ago
The way I read this passage, Jesus was speaking to the impossibility of the rich being saved. I don't see it as "if they became poorer they could diminish themselves to the point where it was possible," but rather "in their own power they cannot be saved, the value system that led them to build and maintain their wealth is contrary to the value system of heaven." In the next verse the disciples are shocked and basically say that no one could be saved in this case. Rather than correct them and explain that the rich can be saved after divesting themselves of their riches, Jesus replies instead (paraphrasing), "Yes, you're right. It is impossible, but God can do the impossible." This also leads me to believe Jesus meant "camel," not "rope."
angiosperm 3y ago
The myth of persecution was always central to the doctrine, but the sheer volume of wholesale fabrication that evidently had to be cooked up in support of it easily demonstrates its falsehood.
- Natsu 3y ago
  That's nonsense. Plenty of persecution is well-documented. Nero had Christians torn apart by dogs (though not in the Coliseum), there was the torture and persecution of the martyrs of Lyon, Diocletian enacted his “Great Persecution” in 303, etc.
  - kragen 3y ago
    yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in that said, if a dude is going around knocking over tables in the temple, proclaiming himself the king of israel (and in most versions also the sole begotten son of god himself), telling people influential religious authorities have everything backwards, supposedly raising the dead, telling rich people to give away all their possessions to the poor instead of giving their children an inheritance, etc., there's guaranteed to be a fair bit of persecution directed his way
    - Natsu 3y ago
      > yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in The gospels were written later, by disciples. Of course they would showcase the messages from Jesus that were most relevant to the people then. This doesn't require any backwards causation, or even distorting any messages, they just have to showcase the sayings that are most relevant there & then when they're writing them down. And persecution happened quite early, Paul himself admits to doing it in his former life, so there are stories already in the Gospel, not to mention Paul's entire appeal to Caesar.
      - kragen 3y ago
        agreed
      - angiosperm 3y ago
        The gospels were not, in fact, written by disciples. They were all written well after any disciples would have died. But we know how they were written. Whoever wrote "Mark" made up things for his Jesus to say based on Paul's opinions, cribbing plot elements liberally from the Septuagint and from Homer. "Matthew" cribbed from Mark and made up whatever he liked. Luke cribbed from Mark and Matthew, and made up more stuff. John did a full-on rewrite cribbing from Mark, Matthew, and Luke for theme and plot. If there was a living, breathing Jesus, we have no hint of anything he said while he lived. Certainly Paul writing in the 50s and the authors of 1 Clement writing in the 60s never heard of any Jesus having said anything they found meaningful enough to mention. Paul is very clear that every single thing he knew about Jesus came from ancient scripture and visions, period. 1 Peter also offers no hint that he ever met a live Jesus. None of the early 2nd & 3rd century Christian writers, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, etc. had ever heard of Nero slaughtering Christians. Pliny the Younger, who had a personal copy of his uncle Pliny's detailed history of Nero's reign, and spent his life in the justice system, also had no clue about anybody executing Christians for anything but illegal assembly. So the best evidence says that the early Roman persecutions were forged later.

by Natsu 3y ago

jdbernard 3y ago

The way I read this passage, Jesus was speaking to the impossibility of the rich being saved. I don't see it as "if they became poorer they could diminish themselves to the point where it was possible," but rather "in their own power they cannot be saved, the value system that led them to build and maintain their wealth is contrary to the value system of heaven." In the next verse the disciples are shocked and basically say that no one could be saved in this case. Rather than correct them and explain that the rich can be saved after divesting themselves of their riches, Jesus replies instead (paraphrasing), "Yes, you're right. It is impossible, but God can do the impossible." This also leads me to believe Jesus meant "camel," not "rope."

angiosperm 3y ago

The myth of persecution was always central to the doctrine, but the sheer volume of wholesale fabrication that evidently had to be cooked up in support of it easily demonstrates its falsehood.

Natsu 3y ago
That's nonsense. Plenty of persecution is well-documented. Nero had Christians torn apart by dogs (though not in the Coliseum), there was the torture and persecution of the martyrs of Lyon, Diocletian enacted his “Great Persecution” in 303, etc.
- kragen 3y ago
  yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in that said, if a dude is going around knocking over tables in the temple, proclaiming himself the king of israel (and in most versions also the sole begotten son of god himself), telling people influential religious authorities have everything backwards, supposedly raising the dead, telling rich people to give away all their possessions to the poor instead of giving their children an inheritance, etc., there's guaranteed to be a fair bit of persecution directed his way
  - Natsu 3y ago
    > yeah but none of those had happened yet at the time that this story is nominally set in The gospels were written later, by disciples. Of course they would showcase the messages from Jesus that were most relevant to the people then. This doesn't require any backwards causation, or even distorting any messages, they just have to showcase the sayings that are most relevant there & then when they're writing them down. And persecution happened quite early, Paul himself admits to doing it in his former life, so there are stories already in the Gospel, not to mention Paul's entire appeal to Caesar.
    - kragen 3y ago
      agreed
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      The gospels were not, in fact, written by disciples. They were all written well after any disciples would have died. But we know how they were written. Whoever wrote "Mark" made up things for his Jesus to say based on Paul's opinions, cribbing plot elements liberally from the Septuagint and from Homer. "Matthew" cribbed from Mark and made up whatever he liked. Luke cribbed from Mark and Matthew, and made up more stuff. John did a full-on rewrite cribbing from Mark, Matthew, and Luke for theme and plot. If there was a living, breathing Jesus, we have no hint of anything he said while he lived. Certainly Paul writing in the 50s and the authors of 1 Clement writing in the 60s never heard of any Jesus having said anything they found meaningful enough to mention. Paul is very clear that every single thing he knew about Jesus came from ancient scripture and visions, period. 1 Peter also offers no hint that he ever met a live Jesus. None of the early 2nd & 3rd century Christian writers, Ignatius, Justin, Origen, etc. had ever heard of Nero slaughtering Christians. Pliny the Younger, who had a personal copy of his uncle Pliny's detailed history of Nero's reign, and spent his life in the justice system, also had no clue about anybody executing Christians for anything but illegal assembly. So the best evidence says that the early Roman persecutions were forged later.