Religious Understanding

[LephtShew]

This is just my side note, If you just want to know my question just read the bottom, but this part sorta explains where i'm coming from:

I'm curious about whether or not people generally understand that religions are pretty much just mythology, and that the purpose of the physical manifestations is to give something understandable to people to have faith in. To me there must be some higher power, and regardless of what it may be, i think that generally most religions are just a safe comprehensible way to demonstrate faith in the world, and people in general.

I do however get bothered by religions (of course i'll have to pick on christianity) where those who are part of them are able to be hypocritical. To those I say maybe you should find something that suits you better. It's the general caring that matters, not the specifics, but it just seems stupid to set out those specifics for yourself and not follow them.
_______________

Anyways, I'd like comments about what people think. Do people in hindu, christian, jewish, and islamic or any other religions generally just follow the basic ideas or REALLY believe in t he mythology (in which case it wouldnt be mythology but fact.)?

thanks

 

[marv]

You'll find hypocritical people in any system of beliefs, even (surprise) politics! It isn't the "faith" one might have in one system or another, but the motive, and the strength of that motive, that should be examined. Every religion has had parents who tell their children the equivalent of "...do as I say, not as I do...".

As to hypocrisy in the practice of a religion, I wouldn't worry about it or use it as a basis to broadly judge others.

 

[A Canadian]

Someone I met online said it best, and I managed to keep this quote writen down.

I am in no way Bashing any religion, but she made a good point.

"religion, in my opinion is simply a tool of the mind, and tools are inherently neutral.. only the user of the tool determines the bias.."

 

[one_raven]

Reminds me of a quote by ani difranco:
"Every tool is a weapon... if you hold it right."

 

[A Canadian]

Touché


Notice how some religions fight over each other?

 

[Leo Volont]

Religious Mythologies.

I know they are not literally true. But if you examine the details, they seem to explain so much.

A few years ago I read a Paper on Psychosis. A Psychologist had examined the religious symbologies of psychotic patients and had discovered a sequence of symbols that lead toward personal integration and healing. This tells us that the Mind is making sense to Itself.

Religious Symbolism does not have to be literally true in order to have objective meaning for us psychologically.

Atheists often object to Religion as being psychotic. We should hope so. If the Religious Mythologies were coming from the logical mind, they would not be nearly so psychologically 'real' or compelling as genuine Psychotic Imagery. True Religious Content needs to be beyond conscious and rational manipulation. Psychotic Experiences and Religious Experiences need to come from a level that is beyond conscious control. In a sense these Psychotic Experiences and Religious Experiences become Objective Phenomena. Certainly the Pyschologists on one side, and the Mystics on the other, have seen that there is a common pattern in Psychotic and Religious Experiences.

If you want the best Religious Vision I have ever encountered, get the first Volume of the four Volume set "Life of Jesus" from the notebooks of Anne Catherine Emmerich (from whom we got the screenplay of Mel Gibson's "The Passion"). Her Vision of the Creation Story presents a Psychotic Reality which covers every base in discussing the Human Condition. It is the Subconscious Mind reaching up to give sense and purpose to Life.

 

[Adstar]

This is just my side note, If you just want to know my question just read the bottom, but this part sorta explains where i'm coming from:

I'm curious about whether or not people generally understand that religions are pretty much just mythology, and that the purpose of the physical manifestations is to give something understandable to people to have faith in. To me there must be some higher power, and regardless of what it may be, i think that generally most religions are just a safe comprehensible way to demonstrate faith in the world, and people in general.

I do however get bothered by religions (of course i'll have to pick on christianity) where those who are part of them are able to be hypocritical. To those I say maybe you should find something that suits you better. It's the general caring that matters, not the specifics, but it just seems stupid to set out those specifics for yourself and not follow them.
_______________

Anyways, I'd like comments about what people think. Do people in hindu, christian, jewish, and islamic or any other religions generally just follow the basic ideas or REALLY believe in t he mythology (in which case it wouldnt be mythology but fact.)?

thanks

Hypocritical:

If someone knows what it perfect and tells you about it and they turn around and demonstrate by their life actions that they cannot achieve that perfection. Does that make them a hypocrite or does that confirm that they are just human and cannot achieve perfection.

To be attracted to perfection but not being able to successfully achieve perfection is not hypocrisy at all. It's just the way it is. Ones love for perfection is noble. But ones inability to be perfect is our current reality.



Myth:

As a follower of the Messiah Jesus i believe He was born from a virgin mother. I believe He was executed and i believe He was raised from the dead 3 days later. I also believe He was raised bodily into heaven and will return in the same manner.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[BeHereNow]

Adstar:

If someone knows what it perfect and tells you about it and they turn around and demonstrate by their life actions that they cannot achieve that perfection. Does that make them a hypocrite or does that confirm that they are just human and cannot achieve perfection.
To be attracted to perfection but not being able to successfully achieve perfection is not hypocrisy at all. It's just the way it is. Ones love for perfection is noble. But ones inability to be perfect is our current reality.

Straw man doesn’t work here.
Hypocritical means they pull some verses out of their rulebook and put literal interpretations and great importance on them, and just flat ignore other verses. There are dozens of examples. Many in the teachings of Paul alone.
Starting with the assumption that the Bible is true, and the verses mean exactly what they say, I can construct a proof to show that divorce is WORSE that homosexuality. I have had “Bible believing Christians” (which of course means particular kinds of Christians) admit to me that my proof was correct. Even so, they continue to speak out against homosexuality and ignore divorce as a social evil that truly destroys the institution of Christian Marriage.
I’m not saying you are one of these hypocritical Christians because we have not conversed enough. I do however, have a hunch I could point out some issues that show you to be hypocritical. A literal interpretation of the Bible virtually demands it. Fundamentalist Christians have become like the Pharisees they themselves rebuke.

You can believe the things you mention about the birth, death, resurrection and second coming without being a hypocrite. I have no problem there.
Care to go into these areas?:
The attainment of wealth, hypocrisy.
Women speaking in church, same thing.
Women teaching men scriptural truth, same thing.

 

[BeHereNow]

I once has a college prof (history of religion) who was also a minister teach us that “myth” simply meant “story”. Sometimes true in whole or in part. Sometimes pure fiction. His point was that Christians should not be offended by reference to the “creation myth” or “resurrection myth”.
I find in practice this does not work because common usage equates myth with fairytale. I have no problem with people believing the myths of their belief system are true, and don’t want to offend them by implying they are simply fairytales. At the same time I don’t want to delude them into thinking I share their understanding.
I’m thinking I should use the term “story”.
Anyone out there think “myth” means fairytale, or can I use it to mean sometimes true?

 

[LephtShew]

I agree with BeHereNow

Also, Adstar... I'm not saying that you should be able to attain the perfection. My point was simply that the religion has goals for each of its followers, many of which are never followed. I'm only saying, that if you could look at religion in a less literal manner, and rather the "tool" that was mentioned above, perhaps you could find something more suited for yourself. (I am not saying you are not a good christian, I'm speaking in a broader sense)

 

[Adstar]

Hello BeHereNow.

Straw man doesn’t work here.

i was not trying to construct a straw man there i was giving an answer the best way i could.

Hypocritical means they pull some verses out of their rulebook and put literal interpretations and great importance on them, and just flat ignore other verses.

I am in agreement with this statement BeHereNow. But i cannot see how this is opposed to the statement i made? Many people want Jesus as their savior but few will accept Him as their Lord. Many agree with Jesus where His Word aligns with their sense of what is right and wise, and yes they do ignore the rest or reason it away. But in the end God knows their thoughts.

I can construct a proof to show that divorce is WORSE that homosexuality. I have had “Bible believing Christians” (which of course means particular kinds of Christians) admit to me that my proof was correct. Even so, they continue to speak out against homosexuality and ignore divorce as a social evil that truly destroys the institution of Christian Marriage.

I am open to listen to your proof, feel free to post it to me.

I’m not saying you are one of these hypocritical Christians because we have not conversed enough. I do however, have a hunch I could point out some issues that show you to be hypocritical. A literal interpretation of the Bible virtually demands it. Fundamentalist Christians have become like the Pharisees they themselves rebuke.

You can believe the things you mention about the birth, death, resurrection and second coming without being a hypocrite. I have no problem there.
Care to go into these areas?:
The attainment of wealth, hypocrisy.
Women speaking in church, same thing.
Women teaching men scriptural truth, same thing.

Well i have seen non-believers before being used By God to convict people who believed they where followers of the Messiah Jesus. I hope that if i am a hypocrite in an area of belief that you will be used by God to reveal that hypocrisy to me.


The attainment of wealth, hypocrisy.

I'm not absolutely sure of what you want from me here? I suppose you want my thoughts on earthly wealth - mammon?

Ok. i believe a follower of The Messiah should be focused on serving their Lord Jesus not on obtaining wealth. But that is not to say we no longer work to provide for our own material needs because as the word says it is wrong to do no work and eat another mans wheat. The only material things that followers of the Messiah should expect according to the Word are food and clothing. And that’s it. All the rest, car, home, even the computer i am now using to discuss this with you is not for us to expect God to provide.

Now i am also told in the Word that if i am to work for some employer for an agreed payment then all the Work that i do for that money should be done with my best effort and dedication. Many followers of Jesus are convicted of this and do their best when at Work. This often leads to the employer looking favorably upon the followers of Jesus and often when promotions come it is the hard working and dedicated employees that are promoted into higher paying positions. Therefore some followers of the Messiah find that because they have taken the Word seriously [to do whatever one does to the glory of the Lord] they end up earning high salaries. It may seem to the World that these people are driven by the want of money and social position but they are in fact doing there best to do their best in their work for the glory of God.

The Word gives instruction to those followers who have in their possession the wealth of this world. And that is to provide for those who do not have these things. Now if someone who believes that they are a follower of the Messiah Jesus has wealth and is withholding that excess wealth from the needy then the next verse should convict their spirit.

1 John 3
17 But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?



Women speaking in church, same thing.
Women teaching men scriptural truth, same thing.

i have placed these two together because they are so closely related to eachother.

Woman should not speak when the faithful are assembled together that is in the Word and woman should not have Authority over a man.

Notice how i bolded the Word Authority i did that for a reason. Woman followers of Jesus witnessing to non-believing men is not in a position of Authority over them. Also Woman teaching their sons and daughters about the Word and having Authority over them (children) is not against the Word.
Also Woman discussing faith with men of the faith is not the same as a woman having authority over a man of faith in the things of faith. When followers of Jesus come together it is an assembly of believers woman must remain silent and not take a position of authority over men in that meeting.

Now having said that. What does the worldly think is the most important position in the community of followers of the Messiah? i believe that the worldly see the leader of the assembly of the faith to be the most important. In "churches" these men are called by many different names priest, pastor, reverend ect, ect. But I would disagree and I would like to try and use an analogy to explain why.


Let me ask you this question. Who is more important to an architect?

The people who will build His building or the people who will maintain His building. Is it the builders or the handymen/caretakers?

I am sure that for architects of a large building projects are more concerned and focused on what the builders are doing then the guys who is dusting the shelves and washing the windows. That is not to say that the people who maintain the buildings do not perform an essential need.

You see, all these people who are struggling to obtain the position of authority in the gatherings of the faithful are fighting for the cleaners job. The most important job in the body of believers is the Job of witnessing to non-believers and the people who stand up in authority when the faithful gather are not doing that. They are "preaching to the converted" if you like.

So the worldly struggle for a position that to their thinking is great, but those in the Spirit seek to fulfill a greater position:

So when i see a Sister in Jesus witnessing for Jesus to non-believers i see her as performing a far more important job than the man who holds the position of Authority at an assembly of the saints.



I hope i have given you what you want BeHereNow. Probably not, but it's a start.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

I once has a college proof (history of religion) who was also a minister teach us that “myth” simply meant “story”. Sometimes true in whole or in part. Sometimes pure fiction. His point was that Christians should not be offended by reference to the “creation myth” or “resurrection myth”.
I find in practice this does not work because common usage equates myth with fairytale. I have no problem with people believing the myths of their belief system are true, and don’t want to offend them by implying they are simply fairytales. At the same time I don’t want to delude them into thinking I share their understanding.
I’m thinking I should use the term “story”.
Anyone out there think “myth” means fairytale, or can I use it to mean sometimes true?

Yes "story" is a neutral word in relation to the Word. It neither makes one a believer nor does it cause unnecessary offence to the faithful.

I have never heard anyone use the word "myth" in relation to a story that they think is true. I have heard it being used by some to describe a story based on some true even but not being a true depiction of that even. Mostly i have only seen people use it as another word for lie in relation to faith.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

I agree with BeHereNow

Also, Adstar... I'm not saying that you should be able to attain the perfection.

Cool At least we have agreement on that issue.

My point was simply that the religion has goals for each of its followers, many of which are never followed. I'm only saying, that if you could look at religion in a less literal manner, and rather the "tool" that was mentioned above, perhaps you could find something more suited for yourself. (I am not saying you are not a good christian, I'm speaking in a broader sense)

I would like more clarity on your thoughts here LephtShew.

The message that i am getting from the above paragraph is this:

You are saying that because a faith teaches a perfect message and that the teachings of that faith can never be successfully achieved by humans then the followers who believe in that message should go out and find a faith who’s teachings and message are achievable? Is this what you are saying

If i was to do this then i would be believing in something that was not perfect and therefore of no eternal use to me. My faith is not about achieving it is about believing.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[BeHereNow]

BeHereNow worte: Hypocritical means they pull some verses out of their rulebook and put literal interpretations and great importance on them, and just flat ignore other verses.

Adstar replies: I am in agreement with this statement BeHereNow. But i cannot see how this is opposed to the statement i made?

Your statements were made in reply to accusations of hyprocracy in Christians. It seemed you missed one of the core issues, so I wanted to restate it so we could have common ground.

Divorce is biblically worse that homosexuality:
One of the Ten commandments speaks against adultery. Thou shall not commit adultery. Surely adultery is as much a sin as homosexuality. If we want to rid society of one, the other must go as well. Can we doubt this?
Now what constitutes adultery according to the New Testament?

[Matt. 19:9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.]

In Matthew we learn that any man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery unless she has committed fornication. In that case, she is a fornicator, which is as bad as an adulteress. So any woman who is divorced is either an adulteress or a fornicator. Thus a divorced woman is just as bad as a homosexual. We also see that if any man marries a divorced woman, he has committed adultery. [Matthew 5:32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.]
So men who marry divorced women are just as bad as homosexuals. Since adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments and homosexuality is not, we might say divorce is worse.

Clearly, divorce leads to adultery and/or fornication, in every case. Clearly, for Christians, those arrangements which cause adultery (such as divorce and remarriage) should be just as illegal as homosexual marriages.


Mammon/wealth:

[Matt 16:24] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
[Matt 19:21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
[Luke 18: 18 -25] And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
[19] And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
[20] Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
[21] And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
[22] Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
[23] And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
[24] And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
[25] For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Adstar writes:
All the rest, car, home, even the computer i am now using to discuss this with you is not for us to expect God to provide.. . .
Therefore some followers of the Messiah find that because they have taken the Word seriously [to do whatever one does to the glory of the Lord] they end up earning high salaries. It may seem to the World that these people are driven by the want of money and social position but they are in fact doing there best to do their best in their work for the glory of God.

The “certain ruler” referred to in Luke 18 followed ALL of the teachings, ALL of the commandments. I see no difference between him and the “some followers of the Messiah” you refer to above. Living in the glory of God they prospered. This prosperity is a barrier to eternal life.
We know that he tithed 10% as required.
We know that he did not covet any neighbor’s possessions.
We have no reason to believe he was “driven by want of money”. In fact, if this were true, if he were ‘driven’, we would expect that he would not tithe, and he would be coveting. The fact that he followed all of the commandments is proof that he was not driven by wealth.
We have no indication that the ruler placed undue importance on his wealth, UNTIL he was asked to surrender it. At that point he had a choice between Spiritual wealth (eternal life, salvation) and materialism. We are lead to believe that he chose materialism. The literal teaching here is that ALL persons of “wealth” are called upon to surrender their wealth. When a follower of the Messiah receives his first raise at work 100% of it should be tithed or otherwise given to the poor. If he had food and clothing before the raise, he will have it after he surrenders it. And so all future raises should go the same way. How can it be otherwise?

We have no reason to believe Jesus was only speaking to this particular person. As with other teachings we should believe this is speaking to us.
Jesus never showed us an example of a wealthy person who had eternal life.
The repeated message of Jesus is that IF you seek the eternal life he offers, you MUST surrender all wealth to the poor, for the poor will always be with us.

Christian women:

Bible writes:[1 Cor. 14:34-35] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. [35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Adstar writes: Also Woman discussing faith with men of the faith is not the same as a woman having authority over a man of faith in the things of faith.

This passage says to me that a woman should not discuss matters of faith with men other than her husband. It does say “in the church”, but there is not the slightest hint such activity would be permitted at the market any more than the church. Also “the church” is often taken to mean anywhere the faithful are gathered for religious activity.
This theme of women not permitted to discuss matters of faith is consistent in the NT. Although many of the loyal followers of Jesus were women, and were shown great respect, we do not have an example where women were permitted to discuss the teachings of Christ.

This has turned into a discussion of your particular understandings and the life you live. I think this is best.
I would like to point out that the discussion started in regard to Christians in general. If you can show that you are not hypocritical, I would like you to also show that most Christians share your consistency.
Are you the exception, or are you the rule? We are looking for the rule.

 

[Cris]

Myth. Has several definitions - see a dictionary. When it is used in respect to Christianity it generally means "an unfounded or false notion or a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence".

The term is usually used to counter the Christian perspective that Christianity is absolute truth.

 

[Cris]

BeHereNow,

The bible appears to be totally silent on consensual homosexual relationships.

You state –

Surely adultery is as much a sin as homosexuality.

The bible has not established all homosexuality as a sin, only perverse homosexual behavior in the same sense as perverse heterosexual behavior.

See a more in depth discussion -

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibi.htm

 

[BeHereNow]

Cris:
A reasonable person might conclude from your statement that you feel divorced people who remarry are fornicators and adulterers living in sin but that a gay couple who marries has the blessing of God.
Let me know if that is your intention.

The term (myth) is usually used to counter the Christian perspective that Christianity is absolute truth.

I don’t understand this statement.
Calling the creation story a myth does not add any proof that it is not a true story.

 

[LephtShew]

Thank you to BeHereNow for putting so much into that last response, I learned a lot.

Cris, if this is true, it only makes Christians against homosexual marriage even more hypocritical right?

 

[Adstar]

Hello again BeHereNow

Divorce is biblically worse that homosexuality:
One of the Ten commandments speaks against adultery. Thou shall not commit adultery. Surely adultery is as much a sin as homosexuality. If we want to rid society of one, the other must go as well. Can we doubt this?

You must understand that as a Christian i do not believe that my sin can cause me to be damned. my objective in sharing what i believe is perfect is Not because i have a goal of riding society of sin. It is good for me to do my best to resist sin within me to love others and limit my negative impact on others. To me the practical outcome of unrepentant sin weather it is adultery or the act of homosexuality is the same. All unsaved sinners are damned in eternity. So yes i agree with you that adultery is as much a sin as the act of homosexuality.

Now what constitutes adultery according to the New Testament?

“ [Matt. 19:9] And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whose marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.] ”

In Matthew we learn that any man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery unless she has committed fornication.

No. You have misread the verse BeHereNow. Lets go through it: Jesus makes two statements in this verse. the first:

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery:"

Jesus was talking to jewish men at the time He said that if they divorced their wives for any other reason than fornication and then they went out and married another woman then they where adulterers. The second part of the verse states.

"and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery"

So any man who marries her after she is divorced is committing adultery with her.

The man that originally divorced her does not cause her or the man that re-marries her to commit adultery. Their act of adultery is their act, their decision. Its not like the former husband grabs a shot gun and forces his ex wife to re-marry another man. It is her decision to re-marry, her and her next husband.

In that case, she is a fornicator, which is as bad as an adulteress. So any woman who is divorced is either an adulteress or a fornicator. Thus a divorced woman is just as bad as a homosexual.

No. If a divorced woman does not re-marry then she will no be an adulterer. Yes she is guilty of adultery within the original marriage but she is not forced to be an adulterer after she has been divorced. She does not have to have sexual relations with any man. therefore she does not have to commit fornication as well. So a divorced woman is only "as bad" as a homosexual if she decided to no longer be celibate.

So men who marry divorced women are just as bad as homosexuals. Since adultery is mentioned in the Ten Commandments and homosexuality is not, we might say divorce is worse.

Yes men who marry a divorced woman are committing adultery. And you are correct that the sin of adultery is one of the Ten. But in practical terms Both the unrepentant adulterer and the unrepentant homosexual will both end in the same place in eternity. So debating what sin is worse or less is academic to a follower of The Messiah Jesus. They both have the same eternal outcome for the unrepentant who do not embrace and accept the Messiah Jesus.

Clearly, divorce leads to adultery and/or fornication, in every case. Clearly, for Christians, those arrangements which cause adultery (such as divorce and remarriage) should be just as illegal as homosexual marriages.

As i have explained divorce does not necessarily lead to adultery or fornication. Both sins are independent of divorce.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

Hi again BeHereNow.

I read your thoughts on the rich ruler a few times and i can see confusion in your thoughts.

Let me post the story in question and give it some context.

Matthew 19
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" 17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, " 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 19 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' " 20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?" 21 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." 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. 23 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. 24 "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." 25 When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" 26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Firstly, it was the young mans claim that He followed ALL the teachings.

Secondly, Jesus said it was hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven Not impossible. For he said "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." So once again you are misreading scripture. Read the following especially the bolded parts it may help you understand.


Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Can you see what the purpose of the law is? To convict all men so that none will be able to boast that they have reached perfection. As Romans 3 says

all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

So what worth is the young rulers claim that he followed All The Law? Now the young ruler may have honestly thought that he kept all the Law since His youth But Jesus knew how to convict Him that he was not perfect by revealing to him his love of wealth. For if the ruler had truly placed God above wealth he would have done what Jesus challenged him to do. See how the young ruler went away sorrowful a sorrowful heart is good, he did have hope. But at the time he did not realize where his hope lay. It was not in the Law it was in Jesus.


You said in your post:

I see no difference between him and the “some followers of the Messiah” you refer to above. Living in the glory of God they prospered. This prosperity is a barrier to eternal life.

No it is not a barrier. What is a barrier is placing the things of this world above ones obedience to God. Greed for material prosperity is a barrier to eternal life.

We have no reason to believe he was “driven by want of money”. In fact, if this were true, if he were ‘driven’, we would expect that he would not tithe, and he would be coveting. The fact that he followed all of the commandments is proof that he was not driven by wealth.
We have no indication that the ruler placed undue importance on his wealth, UNTIL he was asked to surrender it. At that point he had a choice between Spiritual wealth (eternal life, salvation) and materialism. We are lead to believe that he chose materialism.

Can you see the confusion in what you have put down here? The rulers love for money did not start when Jesus challenged Him to give it up. But it was the challenge of Jesus that made him realize how much he loved his money. That’s what the Word does, it convicts us that we are Not Perfect and his sorrow at failing the challenge convicted the ruler. That’s also what the 10 commandments do, they also convict us that we are Not Perfect



When a follower of the Messiah receives his first raise at work 100% of it should be tithed or otherwise given to the poor. If he had food and clothing before the raise, he will have it after he surrenders it. And so all future raises should go the same way. How can it be otherwise?

When a follower of the Messiah obtains wealth over what he needs to live then he is overjoyed to be able to give of his wealth to his brothers who lack the things of this world.

2 Cor 9:7
So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.

God loves a cheerful giver because a cheerful giver is giving in the right Spirit.

The repeated message of Jesus is that IF you seek the eternal life he offers, you MUST surrender all wealth to the poor, for the poor will always be with us.

Of course we should give all our wealth to the poor Of course we should do all the teachings of the Word to the letter. But you are very wrong in thinking that we Must succeed in achieving this perfection to have eternal life. For with man this is Impossible but through faith in Jesus this Eternal life is gifted to us by a forgiving God, who is just in forgiving the repentant.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days