To be fair, I really don't think Jesus would say it was, in effect, IMPOSSIBLE for the rich to go into heaven.
That would make no sense.
... hmm, it is in the bible though. Maybe I need to rethink my statement...
2007-04-12 14:19:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Eldritch 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ok first and foremost, this translation was completely messed up by people who did not know how to read Aramiac. It is actually meant to say Hawser, which is that rope which is used on a ship. If you could read Aramiac you would notice that only one little letter changes the word from Hawser into Camel. So especially if it is hand written or somebody doesnt know how to read. It is easy to mix up. So knowing that, it then makes sense to say to put a big rope through the eye of a needle, rather then a camel.
2007-04-12 21:30:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by AnswerQueen 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
As near as I remember the reference was to a gate which allowed foot traffic only and then only one at a time. It was used after sundown when the city gates were closed for security. I believe the saying went ... easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than .... obviously a camel will not fit through a pedestrian gate and this gate was called the needle due to its shape. Jerusalem, I believe. I seem to remember that there was a watchman at the gate to warn when the enemy was without. As far as who is rich and who is not, I don't know.
Are you certain that monetary riches in and of themselves are implied? Perhaps it is the attitude often caused by an excess of monetary riches.
2007-04-12 21:44:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Grendel's Father 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If I remember the history they made us listen to in school, the eye of the needle was a side entrance in a city wall, where camels could go through one at a time.
2007-04-12 21:22:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by Nexus6 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yeah, I've heard the hole in the wall for a long time now, but never bought it. Verses that were not meant to be taken literally always are, and in this case, they want to say it represents something else. It represents their purpose, I guess.
2007-04-12 21:25:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by MyPreshus 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Maybe, but the phrase actually refers to an 'opening' to a larger dimension. One would need to divest himself of all representations such as name, gender, physical orientation, history, etc. In other words we need to peel away all the artificial layers of identity until we are reduced to a speck of awareness. Then, 'naked', we would pass through the opening.
2007-04-12 22:09:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I kinda found it funny that out of 54 answers to that, 50 of them were totally different, several of them bashed you for asking it, at least 5 didn't understand it, and only one that I read, from Jake M, actually got it.
What does that say about Christianity, I wonder...
2007-04-12 21:27:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by ReeRee 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The question, your doubts, your expressions only tell about disrespect and ignorance that doesn´t deserve anytime at all. You are just racist and are looking to upset people and don´t have even a reasonable reason to do so, so you have to come with this crap...
2007-04-13 07:40:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why don't you worry about oxyman's beliefs, and let the Christians believe what they want to believe?
2007-04-12 21:21:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by MONK 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Nothing new nor is it limited to just Christians all religions do it. Christians just seem to lie better than most.
2007-04-12 21:19:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by God 6
·
2⤊
2⤋