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 ...
Well, if you would care to show me chapter and verse where he is shown to be the uncle, I’ll be happy to “see.”
Your reply is just as easily applied to you — you may be seeing what you want to see; but I’d rather stick to scripture.
Hoss
The Gospel’s don’t actually call Joseph a carpenter. That’s just a translation, and a rather poor one at that.
St. Joseph was a “tekton”, which means an artisan in wood, stone, and iron. He was a builder.
I find a lot of these “was Jesus poor or rich” arguements are really concerned with ensuring Christians suport modern welfarism and socialism out of a false sense of concern for the poor.
I find a lot of these “was Jesus poor or rich” arguements are really concerned with ensuring Christians suport modern welfarism and socialism out of a false sense of concern for the poor.
Lee - your observation is correct. MOST of the links state that the story is MYTH, with not physical or other evidence to show that ever occurred. Story began in England during the middle ages - no other documentation prior to that. IF sources like that are credible, then we have to say Jesus went to India as well and was married.
I have never believed the bible is that simple. I believe God wants us to have the joy of discovery as we spend our 72 years of flesh life studying his Word. He could have had the bible written lawyerly-like where everything is spelled out in detail to where we would never have to think for ourselves, but it seems to me the Word is written so that He gives us just enough information to where we can be steered toward the truth and eventually find the truth if we really care enough to know the truth. It separates the workers from those that want to be spoon-fed.
Joy of discovery is one thing. Joy of imagination is another.
That where work and discernment comes in, separate the truth from the fiction. Discernment is a very important part of wisdom.
Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus' uncle. He was the legal guardian of Jesus as he grew up. Being around Jesus all of Jesus' boyhood and raising him, he knew Jesus' mission and he didn't interfere as some the disciples tried to do (as with Peter's knife-ear incident), and that's why he was Johnny-on-the-spot to quickly retrieve the body from Pilate so the miracle of transfiguration could take place 3 days later in the tomb. The disciples got the heck out of there, but not Joseph. He knew exactly what he was doing.
That's where discernment comes in.
Where are your proofs?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08520a.htm says that:
"All that is known for certain concerning him is derived from the canonical Gospels. He was born at Arimathea — hence his surname — "a city of Judea" (Luke 23:51), which is very likely identical with Ramatha, the birthplace of the Prophet Samuel, although several scholars prefer to identify it with the town of Ramleh. He was a wealthy Israelite (Matthew 27:57), "a good and a just man" (Luke 23:50), "who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God" (Mark 15:43). He is also called by St. Mark and by St. Luke a bouleutes, literally, "a senator", whereby is meant a member of the Sanhedrin or supreme council of the Jews. He was a disciple of Jesus, probably ever since Christ's first preaching in Judea (John 2:23), but he did not declare himself as such "for fear of the Jews" (John 19:38). On account of this secret allegiance to Jesus, he did not consent to His condemnation by the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:51), and was most likely absent from the meeting which sentenced Jesus to death (cf. Mark 14:64).
The Crucifixion of the Master quickened Joseph's faith and love, and suggested to him that he should provide for Christ's burial before the Sabbath began. Unmindful therefore of all personal danger, a danger which was indeed considerable under the circumstances, he boldly requested from Pilate the Body of Jesus, and was successful in his request (Mark 15:43-45). Once in possession of this sacred treasure, he — together with Nicodemus, whom his courage had likewise emboldened, and who brought abundant spices — wrapped up Christ's Body in fine linen and grave bands, laid it in his own tomb, new and yet unused, and hewn out of a rock in a neighbouring garden, and withdrew after rolling a great stone to the opening of the sepulchre (Matthew 27:59, 60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:38-42). Thus was fulfilled Isaiah's prediction that the grave of the Messias would be with a rich man (Isaiah 53:9). The Greek Church celebrates the feast of Joseph of Arimathea on 31 July, and the Roman Church on 17 March. The additional details which are found concerning him in the apocryphal "Acta Pilati", are unworthy of credence. Likewise fabulous is the legend which tells of his coming to Gaul A.D. 63, and thence to Great Britain, where he is supposed to have founded the earliest Christian oratory at Glastonbury. Finally, the story of the translation of the body of Joseph of Arimathea from Jerusalem to Moyenmonstre (Diocese of Toul) originated late and is unreliable. "
No uncle, no guardian, no secret missions to Britain or Gaul, no beaming of his corpse around the galaxy. A nice story, an attractive legend, but the extra-Scriptural allegations are simply myth.
Lee - your observation is correct. MOST of the links state that the story is MYTH, with not physical or other evidence to show that ever occurred. Story began in England during the middle ages - no other documentation prior to that. IF sources like that are credible, then we have to say Jesus went to India as well and was married.
Most times I've seen this bit of legend/speculation/special pleading about J. of A. it's been hitched to the British Israel-ite wagon. That can range from mildly crackpotish, to stuff like Herbert W. Armstrong's sect that's completely beyond the pale.
This is the first time I've seen it used to support the prosperity "gospel".
I do believe the Bible, however. Again, if you can point to chapter and verse that indicates this relationship, I’ll “see” and believe. But, until then, it’s nothing but superstition as shown by Lee N. Field — he is using discernment.
He doesn’t “give us just enough” — he gives us all we need: Christ, and Him crucified.
I still cannot find J. of A.’s lineage, so....
Hoss.
Yes, and fiction is fiction, a story developed in the middle ages.
Yes, and fiction is fiction, a story developed in the middle ages.
That was my impression too - Anglo-Israel range of wackos.
Ramleh...interesting (more evidence).
A nice story, an attractive legend, but the extra-Scriptural allegations are simply myth.
Myth to you, fact to me. We'll find out soon enough.
The truth is out there. Jesus was crucified ~2000 years ago. We've had all that history, all those people who were born and died contributing to this great story...they all meant something to God. If you're not willing to let them account for more than just time-filler then there's nothing I can show you that you would be interested in. Your friends here are starting to resort to namecalling with the prosperity gospel stuff so if you're not even willing to discuss this intellectually then it certainly isn't worth it to me muddying the waters where nothing is learned.
And those people were meaningless, right?
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.