Jesus very explicitly condemns wealth, in a directly quoted passage that cannot be misunderstood. Jesus as quoted in Matthew 19:24 is very very blunt: "I'll say it again - it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of god!" I.e. wealthy people who don’t give it all away will go to hell.
> I.e. wealthy people who don’t give it all away will go to hell.
Did Job go to hell?
> And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends; and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.
> [11] Then came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and ate bread with him in his house; and they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him; and each of them gave him a piece of money and a ring of gold.
> [12] And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; and he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she-asses.
The New Testament is unambiguous. Jesus expels the money lenders from the temple and says it is harder for a rich man to go to heaven than a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Christians are, first, and foremost, followings of Christ and his teachings. That's the point of the entire name. Jesus's words have more weight than anything that came before.
The Old Testament is where fake Christians always go to pick and choose. If you believe the experiences of Job are relevant, do you also refuse to wear clothing made of multiple fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:9–11, Leviticus 19:19)?
> The Old Testament is where fake Christians always go to pick and choose.
If you’re denying both the historicity and allegory of the Book of Job the whole religion begins to fall apart. If the Book is of allegorical value, why would Job be rewarded with wealth?
> do you also refuse to wear clothing made of multiple fabrics (Deuteronomy 22:9–11, Leviticus 19:19)
To head off typical response to that passage - the idea that "the eye of a needle" was referencing a literal gate in Jerusalem (changing the meaning of the passage from "impossible" to "you might have to squeeze a little bit") is a post-hoc justification with no basis in reality.
