1864
Apparently a right-wing deacon said this
(sopuli.xyz)
Cross posted from https://eldritch.cafe/@Jeanneadebats/114184886084246220
Seems like it would be pretty difficult to get a camel through a needle eye. (That “oh he was actually referring to a gate” is modern horseshit apologetics designed for rich Christians to justify having money btw, totally made up.)
It’s kinda amazing how many logical contortions and apologetics there are to attempt to justify a “Jesus didn’t have a problem with wealth” position. It’s almost as if wealthy people are really committed to coming up with some reason why they get to be the exception to the rule.
It is clear in context the “impossible” thing made possible through god would be the wealthy man giving up his possessions. Your interpretation makes the entire story completely pointless and irrelevant, and requires so many logical leaps as to be ridiculous.
I mean, look at Mark 6:19-21 too.
Jesus was flatly opposed to wealth. There is no way around this, it is consistent across the gospels (and not just the canon ones.)
Are we supposed to act as David does? Slaying the Amalekite messenger, adultery with Bathsheba? (Possibly a gay relationship with Jonathan…?) Is what happens to Absalom a happy ending? Is Nathan’s story of the sheep that “pro wealth”?
The authors of the Gospels weren’t the authors of Samuel and Chronicles anyway. The Bible isn’t a unified document with one voice. I’m not really making an argument about what God would think about wealth, but what the historical Jesus would have thought. The evidence is pretty clear there - he wasn’t a fan of it.