Prosperity and God

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Some of the early Jewish believers were probably wealthy since the book of Acts records them selling property to support the early church.

I agree that gentile church overall was likely to have been poor, but that’s mostly speculation.

The Corinthian church was probably mostly poor since Paul says…

1 Corinthians 1
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

Christianity tends to thrive among the poor. A message that the current world is passing away is always good news to the poor and downtrodden. It’s not such great news for Donald Trump.

22

Hi Ned. You quoted; ” James 2: 5 “Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?

This verse does not eliminate the wealthy such as Joseph of Arimathaea, nor does it even speak to the wealthy as a class. It speaks exclusively to those poor “who love him” which the verse you quoted explicitly states (read the end of the verse). The poor who do not “love him” are not his disciples any more than the rich who do not “love him” are.

You quoted James 5: 1-3 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon 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.

You excluded the verses that immediately follow Ned, which is James 5: 4-6. It demonstrates that these particular rich ones that are cited in James 5: 1-3 were: frauds (v.4), hyper-materialistic and funded with ill-gotten gains (v.5), and corrupt and tyrannical (v.6). These characteristics define some wealthy individuals but certainly not all, or even a majority of them. Joseph of Arimathaea (Matt. 27:57), Job (Job 1:3), Abraham (Gen. 13:2), Solomon (1 Kings 10:23) - to name a few - were extraordinarily wealthy and all of them are defined as children of God and inheritors of the heavenly kingdom. It is the love of money, not money itself that is root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10).

You quote Revelation 3:17 – “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

First, this verse is not even speaking about individual wealthy persons at all. It is speaking to the corporate church at Laodicea (read the verses preceding the one you quoted and you will discover this to be so). Furthermore, the opening line of verse 17 that you quoted interprets itself. A church or even an individual for that matter who says; “I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing” – indicates that such a one has placed their trust exclusively in their wealth like an idol; which only demonstrates that their love of money, not their money, is their downfall (1 Tim. 6:10).

You wrote; ” I completely disagree with Passion. Being rich is clearly an impediment to Christian faith.

If that is your belief Ned, okay. I wouldn’t argue with someone’s belief. But if that is your thesis, as a matter of Biblical hermeneutic or arguendo, then I respectfully suggest that the verses you cited in support of that argument cannot sustain such a conclusion. Passion

23

James is stating his belief that God has particularly chosen those whom the world has rejected to inherit his kingdom. This message resonates with many of Jesus’ comments in the gospels. If these verses cause Christians in the western world to squirm a little then, good. They should. But let’s not try to explain these verses away by generating clever arguments that alter the plain meaning of the text.

I agree that being a fraud or corrupt is portrayed in a negative light in subsequent verses. As is being rich, in the verses I quoted.

If you have an interpretation of these verses that concludes that being rich is of no consequence at all, then I’m not sure that we’re actually reading the same bible. Read the first few verses again. Is hoarding wealth a good thing or a bad thing in this passage?

Love of money is obviously a bad thing in the new testament. But simply being rich is also portrayed negatively. Many of these verses have been quoted in this thread already.

Please provide the scripture verse where Jesus states that it’s ok to be rich, or where Paul councils early Christians that it’s ok to be rich. Given the number of verses that warn the rich and comfort the poor, I think it’s pretty self evident that being wealthy is a huge problem for Christians.

Really? And you know this for sure because?

How do you interpret Jesus here?

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Do you think it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom. Is so, why? If not, why not?

24

Hi Ned. Thank you for your follow up thoughts. You wrote; ”Love of money is obviously a bad thing in the new testament. But simply being rich is also portrayed negatively.

That would mean that the rich and wealthy Joseph of Arimathaea (Matt. 27:57) would have been portrayed negatively in the Bible. Was he? Please cite chapter and verse that portrays the rich and wealthy Joseph of Arimathaea negatively.

You haven’t commented on the rich and wealthy Solomon, rich and wealthy Job, rich and wealthy Abraham; all who are portrayed very positively in the Holy text (OT). Are you saying these men should have been portrayed negatively because they were rich? Did the Bible make a mistake by portraying them positively? Or, perhaps you are saying that it was a blessing to be rich in the OT era, but that blessing became a curse in the NT era? Did the Bible make a similar mistake about Joseph of Arimathaea? Please explain.

You wrote; ”Please provide the scripture verse where Jesus states that it’s ok to be rich, or where Paul councils early Christians that it’s ok to be rich.

I have cited many already. Here’s some more. Paul asserts the Christian right to be rich, but not the right to be “highminded” about it, or to “trust” in these riches. Paul makes this point perfectly in 1 Tim. 6: 16-18; “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; (1 Tim. 6:16-18 ) [emphasis mine]. So you see Ned, it is not rich with money, but rich with the love of money that condemns (1 Tim. 6:10).

Paul directed the entire book of Philemon to a very rich and wealthy man named Philemon, whom Paul calls “brother” (v20), and who is highly praised throughout the entire book.

Paul demonstrates that Christ wants believers to be rich, and does not limit that “richness” in any way: “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9) [emphasis is mine].

You wrote; ” Really? And you know this for sure because?

Because of what I already stated in my last post Ned. You quoted Rev. 3:17 without citing the previous verses that set it up. In my last post I wrote: “First, this verse is not even speaking about individual wealthy persons at all. It is speaking to the corporate church at Laodicea (read the verses preceding the one you quoted and you will discover this to be so). Furthermore, the opening line of verse 17 that you quoted interprets itself. A church or even an individual for that matter who says; “I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing” – indicates that such a one has placed their trust exclusively in their wealth like an idol; which only demonstrates that their love of money, not their money, is their downfall (1 Tim. 6:10).” If you still think that I’m wrong regarding my interpretation of Rev. 3, please tell me why; and please use Rev. 3 as your proof text.

You quoted Matt. 19:23 which says; “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

If you had read the preceding verses for context, you could have answered your own question Ned. Matt. 19: 16-22, the immediately preceding verses from the one that you quoted, reveals that the nature of the rich man Jesus referred to is a rich person who placed his trust in his riches. If your thesis was true, then Jesus would have condemned this rich person at the outset of their dialogue; because this person came to Jesus already rich. Yet quite the opposite occurred: Christ engaged in a meaningful and loving dialogue with him while he was a rich person. It was only afterwards, when the rich person demonstrated that he had “love of money,” rather than just “money” (1 Tim. 6:10) that he failed as Christ’s disciple.

Do you think it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom. Is so, why? If not, why not?

If it’s a rich or poor man who places his trust and love in money, yes. If it is a rich or poor man who is open-handed, generous and does not place his trust or love in money, then no. It is the “love of money” not “money” (1 Tim. 6:10) that condemns some rich – though certainly not all or even a majority. Passion

25

I think we’re going round in circles here. Can we at least agree that the NT contains several passages that at least appear to have a negative view of wealth? And also that the NT does not contain any passages that explicitly encourage the hoarding of money?

We can get to any qualifiers you might have later. But if we can’t agree on these data then I fear we will never get anywhere in this discussion and may as well terminate it now.

You didn’t answer my question, you simply modified it to your wishes.

I understand that you have concerns and qualifiers about whether a person can be rich AND follow Jesus, and have decided to focus on the INTENT of a rich or poor person.

And I understand that this might make these passages easier to understand, especially to us who live in western wealthy countries.

However, I have 1 major concern about this line of argument about INTENT. Jesus did not say, “it is hard for a rich or poor person who loves money to enter the kingdom”, he said “it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom”. Jesus always said what he wanted to say. And that is what he said. You might be comfortable making some modifications to his words. But I am not.

26

Jesus knew his audience - much easier for the poor to be humble and submit to and have blind faith in ideas that promise delivery from their wretched existence without any proof…just the possibility that it might work out gave them comfort…

27

debolt I would agree that when someone has fell to the dregs of human existence, perceptions shift. When a person has wealth, susceptbility would have less of a foothold. Though, if a rich person were to accept Jesus, it could be construed in a way that person knows material things aren’t enough to exist. Faith would be implemented then too.

28

Ned, you are right. Jesus did not mince words. When I discuss Christianity with people I have no visual contact with, I try to use a little tact so as to keep the appearance of arrogance down. Unfortunately, I don’t have the tenure that Jesus has since He was a perfect man on this earth, so I feel I must tread lightly to get a point across. This may not be the best way to approach presenting Christianity, but I feel I have been a little successful.

29

Hi Ned. Thank you for your follow up thoughts. You wrote; ”I think we’re going round in circles here.

Not really. In fact, we are very close to obtaining a result Ned. Stick with it. I appreciate your taking the time to brainstorm this out too. Let’s recap: You have made the case that a person, because they are rich in and of itself are seriously disadvantaged to enter heaven or gain true discipleship with Christ. You use as your primary proof text one verse, Matt. 19: 23. I have refuted that position, and said that you have taken that verse out of context, isolating it by excluding the verses that immediately precede it (Matt. 19: 16-22), which explain the nature of the rich person’s conduct under consideration in the verse you quote. I cited many rich Biblical persons, all of whom are highly regarded throughout the Bible. I said that only those who “love their money” rather than those who “have money” (1 Tim. 6:10) face the potential dilemma of non-discipleship and; this idea of a person’s “loving money” is entirely consistent with the nature of the individual person described in the Matthew 19: 16-22 text verses that you do not cite, which immediately precede the verse that you do cite (Matt. 19:23).

I also said that the “poor” are also included in the 1 Tim. 6:10 and Matt. 19 dynamic; because there are plenty of “poor” persons in the world who are just as greedy and avaricious with what little they have, as those rich persons who are greedy and avaricious with the abundance that they have. Christ demonstrated this when he describes the poor man who was forgiven his debts by the rich man, yet the same poor man would not forgive the debts of an even poorer man who owed him money (Matt. 18: 23-35).

The nature of “money” described in 1 Tim. 6: 10 does not delineate quantity – thus, a person who loves his ten dollars is just as guilty of “loving money” as the person who loves his abundance of dollars. Regardless, if I’m wrong, and if your thesis is true, then it should be simple for you to demonstrate that the rich and wealthy Joseph of Arimethiea, Solomon, Job, Abraham, and Philemon (for example) were excluded from heaven or discipleship with Christ because they were rich– which is, after all, your thesis based upon your interpretation of Matt. 19: 23. On the other hand, if you are saying, like I have been saying from the outset, that it is not being rich with money, but the love of that money that condemns (1 Tim. 6:10), regardless of quantity of money, then we are not so far apart.

You wrote; You didn’t answer my question, you simply modified it to your wishes.

Not at all. I have answered all of your questions with full citations. I’ve been waiting for you to do the same.

You wrote; ” I understand that you have concerns and qualifiers about whether a person can be rich AND follow Jesus, and have decided to focus on the INTENT of a rich or poor person.

It’s not me Ned. It’s the Bible that focuses on the intent.

You wrote; ” Jesus did not say, “it is hard for a rich or poor person who loves money to enter the kingdom”, he said “it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom”.

No matter how hard you try, you can’t ignore the preceding verses Ned. Meanwhile, to support your theory, you must reveal the fate of the rich Joseph of Aremethea, the rich Solomon, the rich Abraham, the rich Job… and the fate of all rich men who, like these, are open-handed, generous and – above all – who love God with all of their heart. Were such ones denied heaven or not? Passion.

30

I think we’re close to being done here passion. Again, you didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask it again.

Can we at least agree that the NT contains several passages that at least appear to have a negative view of wealth? And also that the NT does not contain any passages that explicitly encourage the hoarding of money?

If we can’t agree on this point, then you must be reading a different bible to me and there is no point continuing this discussion.

31

Hi Ned. Thank you for the follow up comments. You wrote; ”Again, you didn’t answer my question.

You jest. Would you at the very least be willing to answer just one of the many comments I put to you earlier which you have not responded to yet? Please reveal the fate of the rich Joseph of Aremethea, the rich Solomon, the rich Abraham, the rich Job and the fate all of rich men who, like these, are open-handed, generous and – above all – who love God with all of their heart. Are such ones denied heaven or not? Based upon your understanding of Matt. 19:23, this should be a very simple question for you to answer Ned as it forms the basis of your doctrine. Please respond to that, as your answer should essentially resolve our dialogue.

You wrote; Can we at least agree that the NT contains several passages that at least appear to have a negative view of wealth?

For those that place their trust in money (Mark 10:24, 1 Tim. 6:17) and their love in money (1 Tim. 6:10), I believe we have already agreed that such ones are standing on dangerous ground and the Bible speaks negatively about such ones. But that is not what you have been proposing Ned. Your proposal has been that all rich men, by virtue of their being rich in and of it-self, have little chance of making heaven. When you respond to the question I put to you earlier and above, you will see this is not a possible doctrine from the Holy text.

You wrote; ”And also that the NT does not contain any passages that explicitly encourage the hoarding of money?

You will need to define what you mean by “hoarding.” A man being rich and “hoarding” are entirely different things. Regardless, if you mean wealth building, Matt. 25: 14-30, the parable of the talents praises prudent wealth building even as it condemns the wasteful abuse of wealth. Luke 16: 1-11, the parable of the steward, demonstrates a similar principle: “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” (Luke 16: 11). It is the love of money, not the having of money that condemns (1 Tim. 6:10). Passion.

32

It’s quite clear to me that you’d rather preach me a doctrine that you’ve already decided upon than have a meaningful discussion. I don’t see any point continuing, you’re handing out tracts here rather than contributing to a discussion. While that might be fun for you, it’s not so much fun for me.

I think you are using the bible as a proof text for a viewpoint that you’ve already decided upon, rather than attempt to grapple honestly with a difficult text.

33

Hi Ned. Thank you for your follow up comments. I appreciate your taking the time. You wrote; ”It’s quite clear to me that you’d rather preach me a doctrine that you’ve already decided upon than have a meaningful discussion.

You don’t mean this Ned.

You wrote; ”I don’t see any point continuing, you’re handing out tracts here rather than contributing to a discussion.

You don’t mean this either. Meanwhile, you won’t or can’t answer the one simple question that I asked of you; which question challenges and puts your thesis to the test. Here once again is the question Ned: Did the rich and wealthy Joseph of Aramethea, rich and wealthy Job, rich and wealthy Solomon, rich and wealthy Abraham, rich and wealthy Philemon go to heaven or not? Simple question. Please answer it. Passion