Posted on 12/26/2009 6:09:29 AM PST by markomalley
Each Christmas, Christians tell stories about the poor baby Jesus born in a lowly manger because there was no room in the inn.
But the Rev. C. Thomas Anderson, senior pastor of the Living Word Bible Church in Mesa, Arizona, preaches a version of the Christmas story that says baby Jesus wasn't so poor after all.
Anderson says Jesus couldn't have been poor because he received lucrative gifts -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- at birth. Jesus had to be wealthy because the Roman soldiers who crucified him gambled for his expensive undergarments. Even Jesus' parents, Mary and Joseph, lived and traveled in style, he says.
"Mary and Joseph took a Cadillac to get to Bethlehem because the finest transportation of their day was a donkey," says Anderson. "Poor people ate their donkey. Only the wealthy used it as transportation."
Many Christians see Jesus as the poor, itinerant preacher who had "no place to lay his head." But as Christians gather around the globe this year to celebrate the birth of Jesus, another group of Christians are insisting that Jesus' beginnings weren't so humble.
They say that Jesus was never poor -- and neither should his followers be. Their claim is embedded in the doctrine known as the prosperity gospel, which holds that God rewards the faithful with financial prosperity and spiritual gifts.
A clash of gospels?
The prosperity gospel has attracted plenty of critics. But popular televangelists such as the late Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin and, today, Creflo Dollar have built megachurches and a global audience by equating piety with prosperity.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
“How long would such riches have lasted a family of three?”
Maybe as long as it took to escape to Egypt and survive while there and then return. I just read “The Case for Christmas” and Mr. Strobel said the gifts could have been used for their escape.
I have no idea if he’s right or wrong, I’m just shaking my head in wonder at how people think that this idea is pure blasphemy, when the reality is that it wouldn’t matter one way or the other. It wouldn’t negate Jesus’ teachings in the slightest.
Well Jesus wasn’t poor that is for sure as he came from a working father family
And when He is asked about the balm used on his feet he says The POOR you always have with you
And he tells the one guy who says he does everything that religion requires to sell his garments and give the $$$ to the POOR
He never identifies Himself as a member of that group
Let me see if I understand this....Oral Roberts became wealthy “selling” religion, therefore Christ was rich. Sounds a little like the “reasoning” of Sir Bedevere of Monty Python and the Holy Grail fame—witches floating as they are made of wood, you know.
I agree. Rich is relative to the culture and time . It’s like hearing that bread was 10 cents a loaf way back when so we think- WOW, how rich would we be if that were the cost of living now, with current salaries. But salaries then went about as far as ours do now.
Even if Jesus were wealthy or even well-to-do by the standards of Jews then, he certainly gave it up to walk the desert with the poor.
The whole debate only matters to those who want to USE it to justify their mansions and cars and clothes while claiming to be like Jesus. They don’t want to live humbly, as he must have, so they have to elevate him to their wealthy class. No one can prove anything anyway.
It’s pathetic and repulsive.
I’ve always had this fantasy of Jesus returning and showing up at one of those TV preachers show first( the ones with the $1000 suits and the jewelry and million dollar production) to demonstrate his parable about the camel passing through the eye of a needle and the rich.
I would be very worried were I them- talking one way and living another.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Everything you say assumes that God wants us to be poor or at least live like we’re poor. I don’t see that anywhere in the Bible, nor does that even make sense.
There a number of passages that one can selectively pull out and say that Jesus was either rich or poor. The point is ... none of that is important because none of that has any bearing on Jesus’s message.
I don’t assume that God wants us all to be poor- but Jesus certainly did not denigrate them. I believe God wants us all to be the best we can be- but not at the expense of others.
Preachers who USE the Gospel to prey on the poor are reprehensible. What are they teaching? You too can have a Rolex and a mansion if you get other poor people to give you their last dime in the name of Jesus?
It’s the motivation of those who raise this debate re. Jesus’ social standing that I question. Whether or not Jesus wore expensive undergarments- or none at all- means nothing. It’s not how he looked- it’s what he taught.
They say that Jesus was never poor -- and neither should his followers be. Their claim is embedded in the doctrine known as the prosperity gospel, which holds that God rewards the faithful with financial prosperity and spiritual gifts.
Mary and Joseph gave the purification offering that God's law allowed for the poor. Just cheaping out? I don't think so.
< spit!>
"That's so pathetic, to say that Jesus was struggling alone in the dust and dirt," Anderson says. "That just makes no sense whatsoever. He was constantly in a state of wealth." --from the CNN linkey
"Class, can you say 'kenosis'?"
Living Word Church's (mute speakers before clicking) statement of faith is astonishingly brief, orthodox on it's face, but the way things are phrased make me think he'd be deaf to a traditional Protestant understanding of law and gospel. Best, probably, not to ask him about the imputation of the active obedience of Christ ("no hope without it!").
And the guest speakers list.. Oral, Ken, Jesse, T.D! Oh, yeah!
Works for his daily bread. Charitable enough to share it. Divine enough to multiply it.
Point taken, but consider this: Jesus and His followers ate, bought clothes, presumably lodging as well. Where was the money in all this? Jesus was a wandering preacher. We don't have records of him setting up tents and passing the hat. How did Jesus work for his daily bread when He was preaching?
And Jesus would be the first kid of wealth to get sick of the BS that went along with being rich and selfish.
I think if he WERE rich, it would make the story all that much better.
Nothing wrong with that.
The “eye of the needle” being the door in the great gates of the city walls. Not an impossible task if you have a good camel. But not one you want to try after a few drinks on a Saturday night.
It takes money to run ministries and take the Gospel to the nations.
When Jesus talked about it being harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than a camel going through an eye of a needle, He was referring to wealthy people love money more than God. The illustration is a heart issue, not a money issue.
The story of Jesus does not mention the accumulation of wealth. His adoptive father (aged Joseph) was not rich and Mary didn't bring any money into the marriage. Jesus worked as a carpenter (not a wealthy profession). So on the whole, whatever money was saved up from carpentry would not have supported a Donald Trump lifestyle for three years of preaching. Was He given gifts? Sure. Could He have manufactured all the cash He wanted? Sure. But that was what the temptation in the desert was all about. A repudiation of the things of this world. As well as a repudiation of the lord of this world.
i think that the example that Jesus set for us is that money by itself is unimportant. Sell all you have and give it to the poor is not a condemnation of money, but a condemnation of the attitude and the priorities of the rich kid. And us, individually, and as a society.
Well, I would think that goes without saying, but there are too many so-called Christians (and even many good Christians) who think that if you're successful or even, gasp, wealthy, then that means you can't possibly be a Christian, and you're bound for hell. Utterly ridiculous. Jesus' talks about the wealthy more revolved around the idea that wealthy folks are more susceptible to think that they're the ultimate power in the universe, and they consequently lose sight of God. This is obviously an issue, and that's why He brought it up.
Don't drink and ride, eh?
Or any other priority or distraction from God. Money is only one example. Are there rich people in Heaven? Sure. Are a lot of rich people guilty of worshipping the contents of their own navels? Sure.
Matthew 8:20 Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." --- heh heh, just kidding, folks.
Actually, He did explicitly and personally "identify" with those who lacked food and shelter --- and thought it was so important for his followers to "get" that, that he once repeated the details four times in the space of 16 verses (Matthew 25:31-46.) He identified with the poor. Which is not to say He was born to beggars: He was born to a craftsman's family. It's not to say He was destitute, except in the end when he was stripped and executed. He moved easily amongst working people, too --- farmers, fishermen, soldiers, servants, stewards, whose situations he often used in His sermons. His statements about the rich are so famously uncomfortable they hardly need quoting.
Interestingly, He also "identified" with the child. Mark 9:37 "Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and receives not only Me, but Him who sent Me."
Those are the only two instances I can think of, the situations of the needy and of the child, when He said "If you so such-and-such to THIS GUY, you're doing it to Me."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.