[TheRealThing]

Ah, trifling with poor in spirit as opposed to just poor in the renderings of Matthew and Luke. Well, brother Luke makes it plain enough. There will be a Great Reversal, as hinted at by a camel through the eye of a needle, and the hearers response to this teaching and others like it. As Kierkeegaard observed, it is forever the habit of opulent cultures for the rich to tribute God for their riches and blame the poor for their poverty. How convenient. However, it is antithetical to the Master and the Spirit of the Gospel. Now, I do not blame the rich for their riches, nor do I laud them, as financial prosperity is a heavy burden and responsibility Scripturally, but I am not stulted enough to believe that all poverty can be symbolized and explained by a photo of a food stamp card. And, sir, yes indeed, on a regional basis, using indices like average rent, utilities, grocery costs etc., a living wage should be determined and set, and it sure ain't $7.35.

Maybe not. I know Merriam-Webster doesn't think 'stulted' is even a word. But you do tend to speak your own language (at least the parts you don't copy from me) and these Spiritual leanings of yours are no more verifiable than your contentions about our national heritage, which you prefer to force through a social justice filter you call essential liberty. In Luke the reference about a rich man entering heaven being harder than a camel knee crawling through the eye of a needle, (a man sized door in the wall around a city) simply means that he tends to trust in his own riches rather than in God. In the days of Christ the rich were looked up to and thought of as being spiritually superior. Christ dispelled that assumptive error pointing out that riches make for a life of comfort, and as such actually make it harder for a man to recognize his own spiritual need, which is just as great as that of a poor man. Hence the dilemma of the rich young ruler who though he had lived perfectly under the law, just could not go as far as selling all that he had to give to the poor. But the Lord knew what the ruler's reaction would be before He even asked what he had to do to inherit eternal life.

But you claimed earlier to be making an eschatological argument and now here you are citing Luke's account of the rich you ruler. Which is it going to be?