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 ...
Jesus’ uncle was Joseph of Arimethia who also owned the tomb. Joseph also owned tin mines. They had wealth at least in their connection to Joseph.
Jesus’ uncle was Joseph of Arimethia who also owned the tomb.
Please cite your source for that.
Wonder if there were Unions back then?
Carpenters Local #3?
I think with Mary’s bloodline, coming from David, he would have had the ability to generate great wealth by proclaiming himself as a rightful heir. That might have been on the of the temptations alluded to.
In any event, rich or poor, his message was “good.” And that is enough for me.
Frankincense and Myrrh were more valuable than gold at the time. It seems from family background they were of comfortable means, and the gifts bestowed upon him from the magi certainly made relocating to egypt possible.
Historical evidence shows that Joseph of Arimathea was Mary's uncle. Do an Alta Vista search on "joseph arimathea uncle" and you'll find plenty.
I’m too lazy to look, but I don’t think the gospels mention any donkey. Paintings and figurines should not be mistaken for the Gospel.
“He never identifies Himself as a member of that group.”
He was kind of his own group of one—Emmanuel, King of Kings, I Am, The Word, The Messiah.
So I don’t think it’s meaningful to parse his words on group membership.
The propserity gospel is directly contrary to the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus spoke on that subject. I regard it as rank heresy and deeply embarassing. Jesus’ prosperity or lack thereof is meaningless. God provided for Him every day as God chose. And Jesus accepted that cup every day. One of the themes that plays throughout the New Testament, which His father spoke to Him, is that we are not saved through the things of this world, through water that leaves us thirsty in an hour. Only His living water will refresh us.
That said, some Christians are rich and some poor. Some powerful some not. If they are Christians, they share submission to Him. The notion that wealth is a sign of favor from God surely comes from Satan. If it were true, Howard Hughes was surely the most blessed of all men, fingernails and all. We should be looking more at faith, the ability to submit, the gifts of the spirit and repentence.
***this time from the “name it and claim it” prosperity gospel folks...***
It should be noted that after the birth of Jesus, Mary was ritually “unclean” for several days. At the end of that time she offered, at the Temple, not a calf, not a goat or sheep, but two doves or pigeons, which was what the extremely poor offered.
***Roman soldiers who crucified him gambled for his expensive undergarments.****
This reminds me of the debate in THE NAME OF THE ROSE.
“The world waits with bated breath over what we decide here. Did Christ, or did he not, own the clothes that he wore!”
Carpentry in a tiny hamlet of less than 100 families in an isolated valley was hardly a lucrative job. Wood was scarce in the area, and St. Joseph would have had to pay a good amount for the little wood available just to make it into something. He would have been in no position to mark up his costs a lot to turn a handsome profit. Besides, carpentry was somewhat looked-down upon as a profession: necessary, sure, but kind of like “leftovers” as far as honorable work would go. St. Joseph would have been able to provide in his day, at best, what we would today call a lower-middle-class lifestyle.
Forget the source of this posting, and forget the prosperity gospel crap.
Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus’ uncle - a very rich man. Wealth was in the family. Jesus was born into a wealthy family.
Alta Vista? Tried a search of The Bible and nothing of the kind noted. It does say several things — he was a rich man, from Arimathea, a disciple of Christ... but nothing about him being Mary’s uncle.
Hoss
Nope. Not for the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, and not for the journey Egypt. The Gospels don't mention a stable, either. "But where else would a manger be?" you might ask. Ask today's poor husbandmen: the animals, and their food supply, are often in the family living (dining, cooking, sleeping) room. That way they don't get stolen by thieves or eaten by predators.
Do an Alta Vista search on "joseph arimathea uncle" and you'll find plenty.
None of the sources I'm seeing look very credible.
You see what you want to see.
Nothing looks credible if you don't want to open your ears and eyes. It's the same thing with liberals and the bible...I used to think they were too stupid to realize the bible is true. Now I know that they don't want it to be true...they refuse to believe the bible is credible.
Maybe I should reexamine geocentricism, while I’m at it.
You’re the one subscribing to the simplistic.
I don’t think he was rich or poor. He had what he needed for the time he was here. His focus was not the accumulation of earthly wealth. He owned the universe and knew it. Anyone who could call up a fish to deliver a gold coin to pay his taxes was not poor.
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.