Changes

:That doesn't change the obvious fact that "wealth" in Jesus' time is worlds away from "wealth" in the present, and thus its implications and connotations when used in God's word.  What confuses me is your motive in attempting to censor this obvious information. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:17, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:That doesn't change the obvious fact that "wealth" in Jesus' time is worlds away from "wealth" in the present, and thus its implications and connotations when used in God's word.  What confuses me is your motive in attempting to censor this obvious information. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 23:17, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Yes, the specific things that we have are completely different, but that doesn't mean that "wealth" was any different.  It just means that a person has "an abundance" of material possessions.  It doesn't matter whether those possessions are sheep and goats, or if they are gold and silver, or cars and televisions, or lots of digits that represent money in a bank.  The point is that the person has many more possessions than they need.  The concept is not bounded by time.  Solomon had great wealth.  Possibly greater than anyone since.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>^{[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]} 23:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::Yes, the specific things that we have are completely different, but that doesn't mean that "wealth" was any different.  It just means that a person has "an abundance" of material possessions.  It doesn't matter whether those possessions are sheep and goats, or if they are gold and silver, or cars and televisions, or lots of digits that represent money in a bank.  The point is that the person has many more possessions than they need.  The concept is not bounded by time.  Solomon had great wealth.  Possibly greater than anyone since.  --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>^{[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]} 23:23, 26 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::::: Tim, the essence of this project is to open your mind and think for yourself, and not rely on an argument that "the experts say such-and-such."  Yes, some and perhaps all of the unnamed experts are liberals.  The process of inducing people to rely on "the perceived view of experts is a misleading one.  In courts of law it is generally not allowed without also hearing from an expert with the opposite view.   

:::::::::::::::: Tim, the essence of this project is to open your mind and think for yourself, and not rely on an argument that "the experts say such-and-such."  Yes, some and perhaps all of the unnamed experts are liberals.  The process of inducing people to rely on "the perceived view of experts is a misleading one.  In courts of law it is generally not allowed without also hearing from an expert with the opposite view.