The Poverty of Jesus Christ

a reply to: cooperton

Awww... Brother.
I Was Just Wondering About Exodus And Pharaoh.
Without Intent Of Derailing.... Is There Anyone With A Thread Link Or Info On The Matter.
Im Curious.

originally posted by: 191stMIDET

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: 191stMIDET

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: 191stMIDET
Of course Jesus also approved of slavery so his morality, atleast by modern standards is questionable imo.

Source?

Source? Jesus Christ. . . . . .read the Bible friend. Jesus used the slave and master analogy many times when teaching.

I believe the word you're looking for is servant? Not the same as a slave. As a matter of fact, Jesus pointed out that he came to serve man, rather than be served. Which is exactly he did.

I didn't mean that Jesus (if he did exist) owned slaves, I'm saying Jesus was well aware about slavery as it was everywhere 2,000 years ago and he never condemned the practice. It was normal so ol' Jesus never said it was bad . . . . Wich it is. If you actually think you are a Christian then Read the whole 'effing Bible ALL OF IT. Study it, analyze it, don't just except it on blind faith, question the "Good" book. And if u feel God would be angered by any of that, well then, find a new God.

Owning slaves would be impossible under the commandments Jesus spoke. Love your neighbor as you love yourself was his second-most important commandment. He came to teach us how to live and act as an individual rather then disrupt the current political/social situation.

All of this fits in very nicely with the notion of free-will.

And I read.. and I question.. don't worry yourself.

a reply to: 191stMIDET

Of course Jesus also approved of slavery so his morality, atleast by modern standards is questionable imo.

I noted that you slipped that in very nicely but is it true? It may be true as you look at it but in all reality is it true?
Jesus preached that He did not come to force obedience. If he had preached that message then He would have had to take away the rights of people to do as they pleased. His message was clear in that He offered mankind the gift of existence in the celestial kingdom of heaven instead of the darkness of earthly Sheol.

The requirements of that message was for each and every person to love His Father as the foremost in their lives. To do this it would entail the awareness of that person to also love even their enemies. If one was to love the Father and their neighbor then there would not be slavery practiced by that person. That is only common sense and also what Jesus taught.

Now even though the scriptures do not say that Jesus rebuked slavery does not even remotely infer that He approved of slavery. He did make people aware that if they owned servants or slaves to love them as their own flesh and He also knew that once people would do this then their love would eventually forbid them to be a slave master. Along with this is the understanding that any person who is also a paid servant meets the same requirement of love.

United States history tells us that only about 5+% citizens owned slaves and that love eventually obtained its purpose when that was no longer allowed in this country. Along with that 5% who owned slaves were also people of the same race who owned slaves and people of that same race who captured and sold their own people to the slavers. So in lite of facts, there is a lot more to all of this than saying that Jesus had a problem in morality.

Perhaps it means that you may need more understanding of what Jesus actually taught.

originally posted by: Pinocchio
a reply to: cooperton

Awww... Brother.
I Was Just Wondering About Exodus And Pharaoh.
Without Intent Of Derailing.... Is There Anyone With A Thread Link Or Info On The Matter.
Im Curious.

Couldn't find any links, but Pharaoh is the personification of Satan. Egypt symbolizes the material world - the world of which Jesus was tempted with rulership by Satan. These were real events that foreshadowed the plight we should expect as Christians emerging from the old world of darkness.

Pharaoh was reluctant to let his slaves leave Egypt into the Promised Land of God. We are given a similar scenario today: conform to the ways of this world and continue our enslavement to the financial system, or forego a spiritual exodus which will allow true freedom. Moses led people into the wilderness, the great unknown, expecting to be accompanied by God. I believe this is what Jesus is referring to when he said the following, claiming that our Born-again process is likened to Moses' ascension in the wilderness:

"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life"

If you spend your life swimming in gold, you'll never learn to swim with the fish.

a reply to: Profusion

A MUST reply from me so hold onto your panties.....

Jesus Christ and his father had a very successful carpentry business... BUT even before that....on his birth he was visited by three Kings from the east who brought gold and silver, expensive oils and incense to name a few..... This money was not all spent when they moved to Egypt where they lived better than the lands people.

Why Jesus even had someone to carry the treasury (money) .... how do you think those 13 men ate and slept? Do you think people feed those hated 13 men? Some times but not all the time....

Last supper.... Christ sends an apostle to set a room at local hotel for the evening meal....

Christ never lived in poverty and of course he accepted the "poor" See the message on the mount in NT:

Too many opinions ...... many being deceiving ...... there is a reason of course....

Oh BTW lets not forget Christ travels to india...... you need money for that too.!

Jesus.... Touchy Subject. Sounds Creepy. Can We Talk About How To It Comes To Pass That We Are All Of Adult Age... And Battle Constantly Over The Ideas And Images Of A Man... Born... 2000 Years Ago. And For Fodder... Why Do We Wonder Of The Days When We Did Not Exist...???


I Believe In Jesus Because I Had No Choice. He Rocked Me One Day With A Powerful Spell. One That Made Me Miserable. To Break It... I Had To Fight To Break It. I Went Fifty-Four Days Under That Madness.... He Is Genius And A Master Of Spooks. Beware People! Its Real! And Its Powerful!

On A Much Lighter Note.... I Am Morally Bankrupt.... And He Picked The Immoral Deed I So Delighted In Most And Poof'd It Way. Awww... I Can't Emphasize Enough How Powerful That Spell Was. Tread Carefully....

Will have to go back and read this whole thread after I charge my phone. I always thought Jesus walked around in a silk robe and I can't afford a silk robe to cover my whole body, he definitely didn't walk around looking dingy but was accustomed to being humble besides the occasional feast.

Money for one thing isn't evil as its useful, but the love of money is. The preacher nowadays are a perfect example of what Jesus hated and the same reason he was crucified; for pointing out the love of money of these 'God fearing men'.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: 191stMIDET

Of course Jesus also approved of slavery so his morality, atleast by modern standards is questionable imo.

I noted that you slipped that in very nicely but is it true? It may be true as you look at it but in all reality is it true?
Jesus preached that He did not come to force obedience. If he had preached that message then He would have had to take away the rights of people to do as they pleased. His message was clear in that He offered mankind the gift of existence in the celestial kingdom of heaven instead of the darkness of earthly Sheol.

The requirements of that message was for each and every person to love His Father as the foremost in their lives. To do this it would entail the awareness of that person to also love even their enemies. If one was to love the Father and their neighbor then there would not be slavery practiced by that person. That is only common sense and also what Jesus taught.

Now even though the scriptures do not say that Jesus rebuked slavery does not even remotely infer that He approved of slavery. He did make people aware that if they owned servants or slaves to love them as their own flesh and He also knew that once people would do this then their love would eventually forbid them to be a slave master. Along with this is the understanding that any person who is also a paid servant meets the same requirement of love.

United States history tells us that only about 5+% citizens owned slaves and that love eventually obtained its purpose when that was no longer allowed in this country. Along with that 5% who owned slaves were also people of the same race who owned slaves and people of that same race who captured and sold their own people to the slavers. So in lite of facts, there is a lot more to all of this than saying that Jesus had a problem in morality.

Perhaps it means that you may need more understanding of what Jesus actually taught.

Also worth noting that if Jesus had have preached against slavery a slave revolt would most likely have taken place and many lives would have been lost,
A Spartacus in Israel, possibly further out in to other communities, not the message of love and perseverance Christ taught

What surprises me in this thread is how many non Christians add their version and understanding of Christianity's teachings to the list, when it's just wrong
It's bad enough when Christians get it wrong but non Christians

a reply to: Profusion

believe the issue of Jesus' poverty is an elephant in the room that a lot of Christians treat as if it didn't exist. It certainly doesn't fit with the message of prosperity preachers in my opinion.

Reading tradition requires sorting out those traditions that seem possible from traditions that do not seem possible with always remembering that it is tradition and not necessarily historical facts. I have read much of Rabanus so will relate what he has to offer in some tradition.

Jesus' earthly father was named Joseph and is taught that he died very early in the life of Jesus. Jesus' mother had a brother also named Joseph who was known as Joseph of Arimathea who was in all reality the uncle of Jesus and it was this Joseph who entombed his nephew after his crucifixion. We are not told at what point that Jesus' father died but we are told that Uncle Joseph cared for his sister Mary and her son Jesus from that day till both Jesus and His mother died.

Joseph of Arimathea was one of the wealthiest men in the Roman Empire and gained this wealth by tin mining in Glastonbury of Britain for the Roman Empire. He not only had great wealth but also influence with the Roman courts. It is written that the young Jesus went on many trips with his uncle Joseph and in fact established a house of prayer which He built with Wattles from that area.

After the death of Jesus the house of Annas had the entire Bethany family of twelve put out to sea where they settled in Glastonbury and various French providences. The family known as the twelve included Jesus’ mother Mariam, Her brother Uncle Joseph of Arimathea, the healed blind man, Mary Magdalene and her maid, Martha and her brother Lazarus, and many others. This was the method of propagating the risen Christ as all twelve became the established church of the Christ Jesus. The apostle Paul is said to have met with those who were banned from Israel several times in his evangelizing.

The intent of this is to say that Jesus did have access to wealth by traditional accounts but chose to humble Himself and let His Father care for Him. He did have a bag man if you recall in Judas who betrayed him. The bag man was responsible for the wealth of the entire group of thirteen. Whether Uncle Joseph contributed to the mission of Jesus is not known. We do know that Peter and John Mark had property and Peter was married. We also know that some of the twelve had a fishing business as well as Jesus Himself was a carpenter. So in lite of these things it would be possible that there was some income to support the mission. I do not believe that everyone sat about 24/7 talking and not productive. Peter had a family as well as John Mark and Jesus also had a family. I believe that most people are not aware that they very well may have had to work and not bum about all day. By tradition it was possible that Jesus could have had great wealth through his Uncle Joseph but chose to work and preach as He did.

a reply to: zosimov

Bible verses to substantiate your claims about Paul, please.

I believe the message of the prosperity teachers is nothing but the love of money.

However God helped us get a house without any money and when time came to give the money it was there. A Christian couple came forward and loaned us the money at 3% interest. The house will be paid off in 7 years interest and all.

So God does provide but not in the way he prosperity preachers say

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: zosimov

Bible verses to substantiate your claims about Paul, please.

I'm sorry but I really don't have time to read the Bible for somebody else.

Paul had a revelation from God. It was after Jesus's death. It's all in Acts--check it out!

a reply to: zosimov

Just one problem the Bible is God's inspired words not Paul's. He may have been an instrument but the words are God's.

So in essence your claim is not found in the Bible. You wish to make claims that something is in the Bible yet you know not the Bible enough to quote it.

I bet in the long run you do not even believe the Bible as true, without error and inspired of God.

So you claim you cannot read it for someone is a ruse, for I read the Bible every day and have done so for over 20 years and I knew your claim was not Biblical and asked so you could prove it yourself, however you cant because it is not there.

So if you want to make claims about Paul or anyone in the Bible be prepared to quote the Bible to substantiate your points or claims.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Sorry buddy. I think you're wrong. Not even sure what claim you're referring that you're trying to refute to but:

1. Paul did not meet Jesus in the flesh. Truth.

2. Paul was not Jesus. Truth.

3. Disciples were subject to human error. Truth.

4. Jesus did not condone slavery. Truth.

If you're so well versed well go ahead and refute me with verses.

a reply to: zosimov

Text1. Paul did not meet Jesus in the flesh. Truth.

Not so! Seems as though you can't handle the truth.

Act 22:13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

When you can see a person and hear a person and that person can see you and hear you and talk one to other then I would say that you have indeed met that person.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: zosimov

Text1. Paul did not meet Jesus in the flesh. Truth.

Not so! Seems as though you can't handle the truth.

Act 22:13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
Act 22:14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.

When you can see a person and hear a person and that person can see you and hear you and talk one to other then I would say that you have indeed met that person.

In the flesh was meant to imply that Jesus had already been ressurrected and ascended into heaven. Which is true.

What Paul saw was a vision. According to his own words a revelation. Galatians 1:12

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ

a reply to: zosimov

Why should I refute you with the Bible?

How can we discuss the topics you want me to refute if we have no agreement on the word of God?

You don't believe the Bible is pure, true, whole, complete, without error or preserved of God. So it is futile for me to refute you. For even if I do it wont change the way you think or understand the Bible. You will just argue and debate and is a waste of time.

As for the claim you made here is your claim quoted from the first page of this thread in which I asked you for the verses that substantiate it.

That is Paul, and a rabbi's interpretation. Not Jesus's.

This is actually an an opinionated statement it is not Biblical nor is it found in scripture.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

As stated in Galatians 2:11, Paul rebuked Peter:

But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong.

Which proves that the disciples are fallable.

Therefore Paul's act of returning Onesimus to Philemon should not be read as Christ condoning slavery, which was the point of my statement with which you clearly took so much issue and which you based your faulty assumptions on my belief/lack thereof.

Christ never condoned slavery. If you can find a passage that refutes that I would like to see it.

a reply to: zosimov

In the flesh was meant to imply that Jesus had already been ressurrected and ascended into heaven. Which is true. What Paul saw was a vision. According to his own words a revelation. Galatians 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ

Yes, Paul did see a vision probably several times but in this account that is not what is meant.

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

What is meant here is that the gospel that Paul preached is revealed by Jesus. That means the gospel which Paul preached is not a gospel of religion that man makes up but is the gospel of Jesus which Jesus gave to Paul. How did Jesus give this gospel to Paul? Certainly not in an instant or a vision. After Paul regained his sight he then spent three years in Arabia and then returned to Damascus.

What happened in those three years is not told but it was within that period of three years that Paul was taught the gospel that he preached. Now according to you that must have been one long three year vision. No one is told how Paul was taught. He was not taught by the apostles because he had not met with any of them before or after this three years period till he traveled to Jerusalem and met with Peter.

So who taught Paul? Was it angels? Was it a series of visions? Was he translated and taught in the heavens? Was it spontaneous and if so why would it take three years? As you can see “Revelation of Jesus” can entail many avenues of meaning. Why would Paul keep silent on that aspect? Because it was so fantastic that no one would believe it?

Here in this letter, which is accredited to Paul, most scholars date from between 40 CE. to 50 CE.. That means that it was written, by Paul, several years after his conversion and within a decade of Jesus’ death. Paul was converted about five years after Jesus died and spent three years in the wilderness of Arabia. That means that this letter is very soon after he met Peter and the Jerusalem congregation. It also means that that it was not simply a vision such as he experienced in other accounts. You should read the entire chapter to get the entire picture.

What do you think?