Entering Into the Kingdom Of God

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 74
Topic's author
#31
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
No it isn't.
but you're talking about others,

I'm clearly talking JESUS'  disciples. Rich and well off disciples that are men of influence and rich men in high places. s are some of his women disciples Are you saying that those  examples are not disciples of Jesus? . Are you stating the bible is incorrect.




 They had fishing businesses.
Indeed their businesses was fishing. 

That's absolutely correct, What was it, do you think, that they were doing with all those fish they were catching by the boat load every day.? Were they just  throwing them back into the sea of Galilee or simply giving them away... to the poor maybe?  Don't make me laugh. They were rich businessmen in the fishery business. And Judas' came from one of the richest families on the Mediterranean. learn your scripture, princess. 

Non of Jesus disciples were rich.

I have proved you wrong AGAIN at post 1 and at post 28 as do the gospels themselves.


No one bought spices by the kolo genius.

Semantics. Pounds, kilos' it matters not.  And Wrong again read you fkn scripture 

"Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume."

Then they did it again with more expensive oils and perfumes POUNDS OF THE STUFF. Nicodemus  a rich disciple took pounds of the stuff as did the rich Mary Magdalene take more POUNDS OF THE STUFF!!!   You really are a joker, scrapping the empty barrel, aren't you.  I have told you sunshine , all your arguments are spent and you are devoid of anything at all substantial to argue against anything that I highlight in these ambiguous biblical half stories.




What have I lied about.
In this thread? That the disciples were rich. That Jesus "surrounded" Himself with the rich, that the women in his life were are well to do "women of substance"

That's right. show me where I am wrong if you have a dispute. What do you think is meant by the phrase "women of substance" Einstein?



All lies so that you can make the ludicrous charge about a rich man entering the kingdom.

What charge?  I have ask  questions , here, but of course you missed them. 

What was wrong with pious rich men entering the kingdom of god? 

Why  would it be less easier for a rich man than it would for a less well off man to enter the kingdom of god?

And what is actually meant by "the kingdom of God"?


 "The myth of Christ has served us well" . said  Pope Leo X





#32
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
I'm clearly talking JESUS'  disciples. 
Yes. That is the fakery your lame "assessment" depends on.

They were rich businessmen in the fishery business. 
So you lie. Where are the verses saying so? The disciples of Jesus were poor. Jesus Himself said he purposely chose lowly men.

And Judas' came from one of the richest families on the Mediterranean.
Really? Yet he betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver? Where is your support for these lies Hosea?

Semantics
No sir. A pound back then was not the same as it is today. You have no clue what you're blubbering about.

all your arguments are spent and you are devoid of anything at all substantial to argue against anything that I highlight
I present my arguments with supporting verses. Where are yours?

...in these ambiguous biblical half stories.
If the stories are ambiguous, how do you know they were poor? The stories are world famous and have been famous for hundreds of years. They are confusing and biguous to you because you have a problem.

That's right. show me where I am wrong if you have a dispute.
You can't show yourself right. Just saying Jesus' disciples were poor is not evidence. Show us some verses corroborating you.

What do you think is meant by the phrase "women of substance" Einstein?
Depends on how its used mohindra.

All lies so that you can make the ludicrous charge about a rich man entering the kingdom.

What charge?  I have ask  questions , here, but of course you missed them. 
This charge...

This seem a very bias and hypocritical statement coming from the Christ when we consider that he had surrounded  himself with very rich and influential disciples.

Why do you lie?

Jesus' disciples were poor. Having some expensive ointment does not mean a person is rich.

As always, your charge is bogus. First you lie, equivocating on the word "disciple". Then you just simply insist you're right, with no biblical support.

When challenged, you want me to " prove you wrong". It doesn't work that way. You are not right till you prove yourself right.

Its OK if you have a problem with the rich man and heaven story, but you needn't lie. You needn't be oily.
Topic's author
#33
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
And Judas' came from one of the richest families on the Mediterranean.
Yet he betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver? 

That's correct!!!. He was a thief too and an absolute greedy bastard , Yet Jesus still had this little rich boy as a follower. 


...in these ambiguous biblical half stories.
If the stories are ambiguous, how do you know they were poor?

I am saying they were rich and influential. Keep up. 





#34
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
That's correct!!!
That is silly. You still have no biblical support for your claims.

I am saying they were rich and influential. Keep up.
Then the stories were not ambiguous were they?

Notice that Stephen has so far failed to give any biblical support for his claim?

Notice that he has failed to address the ambiguity in his equivocation on the word "disciple"?

Soon he will lie that he did present support. If pressed further, he will go crying to the mods that I'm harassing him.

His work here is done. Make the bogus charge. That is all. Don't support it. Don't debate it. Just like a bigot yelling out "homo!!" from the crowd, this poster is not seeking truth, he only wants to accuse.

But I was comprehensively trained for these tactics too. He will not escape his burning.

But for the time being let's watch him do the dodge dance.
#35
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6

Because Mary and Joseph could only offer a sacrifice of a pair of doves or two young pigeons after Jesus was born (Luke 2:22-24), we can presume that “at least at the time of Jesus’ birth Mary and Joseph had very few financial resources” as Blomberg says.

We know this because according to Leviticus 12:1-8, after the forty days of purification, a lamb was to be brought as a burnt-offering, and a pigeon as a sin offering. But the poor could only bring the two birds instead. So clearly Jesus was not born into a wealthy family, or even a mildly well-off family.

Moreover, if Jesus and his followers were in fact well-off, why did they need welfare handouts from the wealthy women as mentioned above? As Hagner notes, “Jesus had a few relatively wealthy followers (e.g., Joseph of Arimathea, Lazarus, Zacchaeus, and perhaps Matthew) and was happy to take advantage of their hospitality (cf. Luke 8:3).”

Other indications of their lack of wealth can be cited. At one point for example Jesus had to get some tax money out of a fish (Matt. 17:24-27). If the amount owed was about “two days pay for an ordinary workman” as Morris says, such an amount should not have been too difficult to come by. But “their lack of ready money” as France says may point to their relative poverty.

Although this may not be very decisive evidence, it could be, as Morris suggests, that Jesus and his band of followers did have the money, but did not want to squander the “little group’s meager store of money” on a tax that Jesus by rights did not have to pay.

Moreover, we are clearly told that Jesus had nowhere to lay his head, even though foxes had dens and birds had nests (Luke 9:58 – see also Matt 8:20). The context of this verse (vv. 57-62) is about the cost of discipleship. Jesus is making it crystal clear that being his disciple will cost them everything, including material possessions, security, comfort, and their valued resources.

Speaking of the Matt 8:20 passage, France says this: “The itinerant ministry (4:23) which now required their crossing the lake would allow no certainty of lodging, and many nights must have been spent in more exposed locations even than those of the foxes and birds; the coming night will find Jesus sleeping in a boat (v. 24).”

But let me draw this to a close. There is no question that as the eternal second person of the Trinity, the Son is of course rich beyond measure. God is the creator of all things, and owns the cattle on a thousand hills (Psalm 50:10). But that is not the issue. The issue is this: during his life on earth, was Jesus “extremely wealthy” as folks claim, or was he very much like most people back in first century Palestine: basically poor, but able to get by?

All the biblical evidence we have would suggest the latter. And given how often Jesus warned about the dangers of wealth, it is highly unlikely that he chose an opulent and extravagant lifestyle. In fact, everything we know about Jesus suggests the exact opposite.
------------------------------------------------------
But the accuser needs a lie to be able to accuse.
#36
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
It is not a sin to be rich.

It is a sin to make an idol of your riches.


The Church has an ancient monastic tradition filled with plenty of examples of those who for the sake of perfection gave up everything they had. Monasticism is still alive today in the church.



Topic's author
#37
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
It is not a sin to be rich.

I know. I am not arguing the toss.  Its camels and how easier it is to get into the kingdom of  god. 

Do you know who Jesus means when he speaks of "the poor" in the New Testament, Mopac?
#38
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Depends entirely on the context.


Truly, a heart far from God with all the world's wealth suffers the worst of poverty. In the end, such a soul has nothing.

Topic's author
#39
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5

And Judas' came from one of the richest families on the Mediterranean.
Yet he betrayed Jesus for 30 pieces of silver? 



That's correct!!!He was a thief too and an absolute greedy bastard , Yet Jesus still had this little rich boy as a follower. 


That is silly. You still have no biblical support for your claims.

..John 12:6



He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Not that he cared for the poor—he was a thief, and since he was in charge of the disciples’ money, he often stole some for himself.

He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Judas did not say this because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money bag, he used to take from what was put into it.

But he said this, not because he was caring for the poor, but because he was a thief; and having the money bag, he used to pilfer that being put into it.

Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.

This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.

This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.



Now do yourself a fkn favour and go and try to rile antagonize some one else . I have told you many times now sunshine. You are fkn spent and void and redundant. someone new to pester may not realise how spent  and redundant you actually are, for your first 1 or 2 posts.

Topic's author
#40
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I asked you: 

Do you know who Jesus means when he speaks of "the poor" in the New Testament, Mopac?
your response was to say :  


Depends entirely on the context.

OK,  So try this context > “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God". 




#41
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The poor in spirit in the context of this verse are those who recognize everything they have received is from God, and without God they are nothing.
#42
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
No one has denied that Judas was a thief Abdul.

You claimed that the disciples were rich.
You claimed that Judas was rich.

You again have offered no support for your bogus claims.

You are offering proof for what is not in contention, and post the same verse from various versions because you are empty.

You didn't even address a single point in my 2 posts. But here you are, ready with your potty mouth.

You can't support your claims, and you can't contradict mine, but I am spent? Lol.

On what, other than your insane bias, are basing your claim that the disciples were rich? I say they were not, and gave several examples showing they were poor, and your reply is to post the same verse several times saying Judas was uncaring?

The one spent and empty is you Jed. You have nothing but accusations and bluster.
Topic's author
#43
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
You claimed that the disciples were rich.

That right I do, and they were. You don't agree and i don't fkn care. now what. 
Those  perfume and anointing oils were worth over a years fkn wages but here they were just throwing it all over Jesus when they could have given that money to the "poor". so much so that even Judas got upset at the fkn wasted expense.

Like I said. you don't agree and I don't fkn care . So off you pop princess. nothing for you here.
Topic's author
#44
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Depends entirely on the context.

OK,  So try this context > “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God". 


The poor in spirit in the context of this verse are those who recognize everything they have received is from God, and without God they are nothing.

And who are "the poor" in this verse?

“Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? 





#45
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
The financially poor.

The reason in that case Judas' objection was unwarranted was because the woman had already sacrificed her perfume, so to speak, and it wouldn't be right to dishonor that.

#46
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
That right I do, and they were.
No they weren't homer. This is a debate site. You've asserted something and are now admitting you have no logical reason for your assertion.

You don't agree and i don't fkn care. now what. 
Lol. I know Abdul. Now everyone (and you too) see out of your own mouth that you are completely ignorant on the subject you're blathering about.

Now what? Everyone sees that I am right to call you a fraud who is not here to debate. All you want is to accuse. And you can't even support your fake accusation.

Those  perfume and anointing oils were worth over a years fkn wages...
How do you know genius? Should we take your word on faith?

but here they were just throwing it all over Jesus when they could have given that money to the "poor".
So one item makes them rich? Do you think before you write?

so much so that even Judas got upset at the fkn wasted expense.
He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief;
Lol.

Like I said. you don't agree and I don't fkn care . So off you pop princess. nothing for you here.
You got that right. There is nothing here. Unless you count lies and ignorance, then there is a lot here.
Topic's author
#47
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Depends entirely on the context.

OK,  So try this context > “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God". 


The poor in spirit in the context of this verse are those who recognize everything they have received is from God, and without God they are nothing.

And who are "the poor" in this verse?  Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? 

The financially poor.

And where in the scriptures of the New Testament does Jesus ever  mention "the financial poor".


#48
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

Topic's author
#49
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Depends entirely on the context.

OK,  So try this context > “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God". 


The poor in spirit in the context of this verse are those who recognize everything they have received is from God, and without God they are nothing.

And who are "the poor" in this verse?  Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? 

The financially poor.

And where in the scriptures of the New Testament does Jesus ever  mention "the financial poor".


Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”


OK. And how exactly do you know from this verse that Jesus is specifically talking about "the financial poor". And is that the only single verse that you can find where, you believe Jesus means "the financial poor"?



#50
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
I gave you one example. It was not intended to be exhaustive.

What are you trying to say?


Topic's author
#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5

So one item makes them rich?

yes!!!! ONE SINGLE ITEM!!!!  Worth MORE THAN three hundred denarii ”

That's; around almost 30 grand!!!!!! in today's money, princess. And this wasn't the first time either. They were throwing it over Jesus like there was no tomorrow.  But  what did "our lord Jesus" have to say when someone complained?

Yes, he more or less said  ' bollocks to the poor  they will always be there, and if you are that concerned about "the poor" give them something of your own anytime you like ' . 

Yes here we are: Mark 14:7

Lay off Mary.  Stop with your moaning and whining and whinging;      "you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them". 

Oh yes the heartfelt  consideration he had shown  "the poor " here is fkn staggering.

Topic's author
#52
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I gave you one example. It was not intended to be exhaustive.

What are you trying to say?

I am trying to get you to find me examples of Jesus making direct references to what you have described as  "the financial poor". You see Mopac, it was you who suggested that  there were different types of  "poor", by asking for "context" wasn't it.

I gave you a verse and you inserted  words  into that verse to make it distinct;  you did this, not me.


This is what I posted to you above:

" Looking at his disciples, he said: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" .Luke 6:20

This was your response to that verse:
 

The poor in spirit in the context of this verse are those who recognize everything they have received is from God, and without God they are nothing.

But it don't even say the words "in spirit" does it? YOU  inserted the  words " in spirit" that are  not even mentioned in that verse. I know why you did this, but I let it go and gave you another verse, with the word "the poor" in it, You then said that  in this case it was "the financial poor": 

and as can be seen above you avoided this question  >  And how exactly do you know from this verse that Jesus is specifically talking about "the financial poor"

. My point is Mopac, that nowhere in the scriptures does Jesus ever make reference to " the financial poor" . he simply says "the poor". I will give you that he says in the sermon on the mount:
 
 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
  for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

but lacking spirit doesn't mean one is a member of "the financial poor".

And the truth is , you do not actually know what or who Jesus means when he says "the poor". That is why I asked you;

" And how exactly do you know from this verse that Jesus is specifically talking about "the financial poor". I would still like you to explain how you know.

Neither can you find another verse that you believe Jesus is talking about "the financial poor". Because there isn't a single one.





#53
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
I have the benefit of both the apostolic church and The Holy Spirit.

The bible is not intended to be separated from the church.


#54
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Financial poverty isn't even really a good way of putting it. People who lack food, shelter, clothing, orphans, widows, the like. Christians are supposed to help alleviate the sufferings of these people. First and foremost through the gospel, but not without neglecting their physical needs.
#55
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
So one item makes them rich?

yes!!!! ONE SINGLE ITEM!!!! 
Sorry. That is just silly. Especially given that the bible flatly contradicts you, and their recorded behavior showed poverty.

Worth MORE THAN three hundred denarii ” 
You have no clue how much it was worth. 

In those days without refrigeration, spices were essentials, not luxury items.

They were throwing it over Jesus like there was no tomorrow.
That is another one of your dishonest claims. There is only one single instance of it while Jesus was alive.

Time for me to show the gentle your tail bone again. You will dodge this, so I'm going to mention it so that the Gentle Reader sees you dodge.

The woman putting the spices on Jesus was so poor, she had to use her hair as a cloth, indicating she was not rich.

Oh yes the heartfelt  consideration he had shown  "the poor " here is fkn staggering.
And there you go. All the fakery about disciples and wealth so that you could go on to make this additional bogus claim.

Jesus didn't care about the poor. Lol!

But  what did "our lord Jesus" have to say when someone complained?
Who complained Pedro? Judas. Lol. Didn't you just tell us that Judas did not care for the poor?

But here you are, attacking Jesus as not caring based on the complaint of one you claimed didn't care!

And then to show your dishonesty and fakery, you edit out Jesus' response pertaining to what the woman was doing.

Jesus said it was a one time thing, for the special occasion of his upcoming burial. 

It was the first and only time, not throwing all over Him. That is just another lie you need to float your fakery.
Topic's author
#56
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I have the benefit of both the apostolic church and The Holy Spirit.

Yes  very well, could you ask the holy spirit to explain for you and me  where in this biblical verse below anyone is referencing what you call  "the financial poor"?


  "Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor"? John 12:5



Financial poverty isn't even really a good way of putting it.
That was your choice of words, not mine , Mopac.


People who lack food, shelter, clothing, orphans, widows, the like.

Yes those are examples of people being poor - except maybe the widow, who could have inherited a fortune for all anyone knows, a fishing business maybe, with a fleet of boats.  But where in the scripture does Jesus reference these types of "poor"? Does Jesus for instance, say give to "the poor"  orphanage?

Christians are supposed to help alleviate the sufferings of these people.First and foremost through the gospel, but not without neglecting their physical needs.

And very commendable that is. But that is not what I am asking about?  You simply do not know  to whom Jesus is referring to when he uses the words "the poor" do you? 

Would you deny that the scriptures- that is to say Jesus,  used code or coded words that were  only for "those who have ears"?



Topic's author
#57
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Worth MORE THAN three hundred denarii ” 
You have no clue how much it was worth. 

You really need to do some homework. Come back when you have at least researched what it is you are denying.



"I am not sure if Mary realized the significance of her action or understood that Jesus was going to die. She did what she did out of love and appreciation for Jesus who recently had raised her brother Lazarus from the dead. She broke the vial of perfume and poured its entire contents over Jesus’ head. She lavished the precious perfume valued at 300 denarii on Jesus. A denarius represents the daily wage for a laborer. In today’s value, that anointing costs approximately $30,000! Mary was extravagant in her adoration because in her eyes, Jesus was worthy … far more valuable than 300 denarii".

Give or take
Topic's author
#58
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac

It is not a sin to be rich.
I agree. Not in my eyes anyway. But Luke on the other hand seems to be taking a pretty dime view when speaking for Jesus here
 Luke 6:24

“But woe to you who are rich,
    for you have already received your comfort.

So what happens to Joseph of Aremathea and Nicodemus  and the Fishermen  who had their own boats and fishing businesses. 

And the wealthy woman of substance liberally  throwing extremely expensive oils that cost a years wages all over Jesus?



#59
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
I believe I already pointed out that rebuking the woman after she already committed the deed is to dishonor her sacrifice.








Topic's author
#60
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,333
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
But it doesn't move from the fact that she, and them are rich. I ask you again




So what happens to Joseph of Aremathea and Nicodemus  and the Fishermen  who had their own boats and fishing businesses. 

And the wealthy woman of substance liberally  throwing extremely expensive oils that cost a years wages all over Jesus?


Luke 6:24

“But woe to you who are rich,
    for you have already received your comfort.