Whoa... X-Posted From DU Religion Group... 'Jesus Wasn’t Born Rich. Think About It.' - DailyBeast

[WillyT]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Rhiannon12866 (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Jesus Wasn’t Born Rich. Think About It.
He was born in a barn to penniless parents who were part of a people under occupation. Get it? So why do so many of us not get it?
Gene Robinson - DailyBeast
12.25.14

No mention here of God’s congratulating those who did well in the stock market this year. No awards for defeating a bill to raise the minimum wage. No cheers for those who push and vote against taking climate change seriously. No approving remarks for the growing gap between rich and poor. No congratulations for those who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and then blame the poor for being poor.

The Christmas story is meant to bring comfort to those who are oppressed: young unarmed black men in Ferguson and Cleveland and all over America, Palestinians who are captive in their own homeland, LGBT people in Uganda, women who suffer genital mutilation, undocumented children on our border, abused women and children, incarcerated people who languish forgotten in for-profit prisons in America, the poor everywhere. But this same Christmas story and message should be unsettling, even disturbing, to those of us who are well off. It is a revolutionary story, which threatens to upend the world as we know it.

More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/25/jesus-wasn-t-born-rich-think-about-it.html

[Warren Stupidity]

1. It is also inaccurate.

Supposedly the fictional jesus family was not too poor to afford a room, the rooms were all booked. Note that to be the messiah this jesus, like all the other jesus's, had to be related to David, as per the prophecy in Daniel, and in Matthew that is spelled out explicitly. So - royal lineage. Not all that poor.

[merrily]

3. Being a distant descendant of a king in Biblical times was no guaranty of wealth.

But, Joseph was a carpenter, so he had a good trade.

I agree about the inn. And Jesus did get all those valuable "welcome to the mundane world" presents from the magi.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I didn't say they were wealthy.

[merrily]

5. I didn't say you said that.

And you did post, "So - royal lineage. Not all that poor."

In any event, I think the points my post made were worth making.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. I don't think we are disagreeing.

The royal lineage is just another point of separation between the protagonist in a messiah myth and "common people".

[merrily]

7. I never said we were disagreeing either.

I don't think it important (to me) whether Jesus of Nazareth was poor or rich, of royal blood or not, or even whether he existed or not. Assuming he existed, he seems to have had a heart for the poor and/or helpless. That's important to me.

[Warpy]

42. Yeah, except that given the habits of male royals through the millennia

and good recordkeeping, most of us would be able to trace our lineage back to a whole slew of crowned heads, especially in Europe and given the problems caused younger siblings by primogeniture. And that's with monogamous marriage.

The distance from king to commoner might have been very few generations, all traced through younger sons. Sticking one's nose in the air because great great grandpa was a king didn't buy you much.

Likely a lot of people in the area could claim descent from the House of David. Think about the list of wives and concubines in Chronicles and the thousand year difference in time period. Being of the House of David wasn't much of a pedigree.

[merrily]

46. You were the one who brought up the alleged significance of his descent from King David, first as

to whether he was poor or not, and then as to whether he was a commoner or not. I am the one who said none of that was important to me.

[Warpy]

56. Uh, you're barking up the wrong poster, Slick

You might want to address this to somebody else.

[merrily]

68. Obviously, I assumed that Warren was continuing our conversation and did not even

check for the screen name on your post. My bad (also obvious).

[Moonwalk]

69. Actually he's not of David's line and not the Messiah given the virgin birth....

According to New Testament, Joseph is of David's lineage, which should make Jesus of David's line; but NT says he's not Joseph's son, so it's kind of a moot point.

Of course, god is king of kings, and that make Jesus prince of princes, so not merely royal but super royal. He can't, however, also be the messiah. I mean, I know the aim is to have it both ways, but the messiah has to be of David's line and there's no way for that to be possible if Jesus was immaculately conceived and born of a virgin. Such linage is father to son, not mother to child. So, either he's Joseph's son and royal that way—also the potential messiah--or he's the son of god, and therefore not of David's line and so not the messiah according to the old testament requirements.

He can be a god an savior, but not the messiah prophesied in the book of Daniel.

[merrily]

81. Yep. And Jews trace lineage through the Mom, not the father (or putative father).

So, the whole thing is perplexing, at best.

All those "begats" to prove that Jesus had descended from David!

[merrily]

2. Can you cite a Biblical verse that says Joseph and Mary were penniless?

I don't know of one that describes the wealth (or not) of Joseph and Mary when Jesus was born.

Yes, Jesus was born in a manger, but the Bible specifies that was the situation because there was no room at the inn. Apparently, Joseph had asked for a room and was ready and able to pay for it, if the innkeeper had been able to give him one.

Joseph was apparently also sufficiently comfortable financially to be able to marry a woman who was already pregnant, though not by him.

[WillyT]

12. Manger... Such A Nice Word For A Barn... And A Word Most Of Us Would Not Have Heard Of...

If Jesus Had Not Been Born In One... Manger/Barn...

[merrily]

13. A manger is not a barn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manger

It served as Jesus's first crib (perhaps ironic, given Joseph was a carpenter and probably had a very nice one waiting for Jesus back home).

[WillyT]

15. A Distinction... Without A Differencet ??? - Please...Do Explain...

[merrily]

18. A barn houses animals. A manger is where the food for animals is placed. We might say "trough."

[WillyT]

21. How Far Is It From The Barn ???

[merrily]

25. You said manger is such a nice word for a barn. It's not. (BTW, you're welcome for the right info.)

So, what's your point now about distance?

[WillyT]

27. Is A Manger... Part Of The Barn... Or A Seperate Stucture ???

And how close to the barn is it?

[merrily]

29. You've simply repeated yourself without answering my question.

[WillyT]

30. Manger:

A manger, or trough, is a feeder that is made of carved stone, wood, or metal construction and is used to hold food for animals (as in a stable). Mangers are mostly used in livestock raising. They are also used to feed wild animals, e.g., in nature reserves. The word comes from the French manger (meaning "to eat&quot , from Latin manducare (meaning "to chew&quot .

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manger

[merrily]

75. Yes, you've now proved that, as I said, "manger" is not a nice word for a barn.

Neither is a "trough." Serving dish" is not a nice term for a dining room, either.

I don't know what point you think you are making. Are you claiming that a word that means a feeder [bfor ]is really a synonym for a barn? Cause that claim would be a lot sillier than just making a mistake about what "manger" means.

[daredtowork]

8. There are many "socialist" statements in the Bible

My personal favorite is when David is leads a successful raid. Some of the men complain about having to bring the spoils back to the village where slackers had been "resting", and no one had helped them do the work. David snapped them back for being greedy snots and taught everyone the concept of sharing with their friends and kin, whether they were in on that particular raid or not.

[brooklynite]

10. But if you have slaves you can still keep them, right?

[daredtowork]

11. Slaves were released every Jubilee year in the OT

I don't recall Jesus personally keeping slaves. However, it took Christians centuries to get that out of the Bible.

I'm agnostic myself, so not really an expert on these matters. My father was a minister, which is why I have a vague familiarity.

[brooklynite]

14. Not always, and definitely not the gentile slaves

Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (NIV)

Deuteronomy 15:17 "It shall come about if he says to you, 'I will not go out from you,' because he loves you and your household, since he fares well with you; then you shall take an awl and pierce it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your servant forever. "

[daredtowork]

24. Not sure why you are obsessing over the Old Testament

We're trying our best to overcome slavery these days, though.

[merrily]

59. Not sure, either, especially since Jesus birth is the subject of the OP, not the OT.

[brooklynite]

60. Obsessing?

Last time I checked, the OT was part of Christianity (it's in every Bible). The notion that the OT laws are no longer in force is certainly conveniënt, and covers a multitude of, er "sins", but for every NT line you can cite to assert that, you can find another one to dispute it. In any event, point me to a NT line that asserts slavery is no longer allowed.

Far as I can see, Jesus made some nice comments about caring for the poor, but I can't say he advocates a socialist paradise.

[merrily]

83. Please see Reply 31.

The OT is indeed part of the Christian Bible, but, as we all know, everything in the OT is not part of the Christian religion. Supposedly, only the things "carried forward" into the NT are part of the Christian religion. As reply 31 states, Jesus did not purport to carry forward very much. The Apostle Paul, who never met Jesus, however, "carried forward" a lot of mess.

Again, for purposes of easy discussion only, I am not citing in each post the possibility that Jesus never existed, even as a mortal. We all know what the relevant arguments are and are not. But, if we are debating what the Bible says and does not say, it's just easier to assume certain things, rather than qualify every sentence.

[merrily]

31. Context matters, both the written word and the context of a few thousand years B.C.

But, sure, there's a lot of nasty stuff in the OT. However, Jesus boiled all of the Torah, indeed all of the OT (aka, "the law and the prophets&quot down into two principles: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

(If you prefer, we can think of that pronouncement as words attributed to Jesus.)

But, what's your point?

[brooklynite]

57. Ah yes, context...

It was a time of poverty, but somehow God said: "Don't Steal", not "if you HAVE to steal, take things from people who can afford it"

It was a time of violence, but somehow God said: "Don't Kill", not "if you HAVE to kill, make it as quick and painless as possible"

It was a time of slave-owning, but somehow God DIDN'T say "Don't own other people as property", but DID say "if you DO own other people as property, don't beat them so badly that they die within two days.

Context.

[merrily]

58. All agree the Bible contains some nasty stuff and some inconsistent stuff. My prior post also

said so. None of that is any mystery to most of DU.

Your point, however, is what is escaping me, especially in the context of the OP.

[brooklynite]

61. My point is the reference to "socialist statements"

A couple of "be nice to the poor" comments doesn't socialism make.

[merrily]

62. "Be nice to the poor: doesn't equate to "give everything you own away," either.

You said the first bit to dismiss the nature of what Jesus said, but Jesus said the second bit.

Still don't know your point about all the OT stuff, either. My prior post also addressed that, but you couldn't seem to let go of it.

[Moonwalk]

74. If we're talking context then remember that god has innocent Canaanites murdered, their land stolen...

In context, those two things you're arguing god didn't say are EXACTLY what he does say to the Israelites about the Canaanites. To take the land of Canaan from it's owners and kill them all down to the last man, woman and child. Not because they're bad people (how can every man, woman and unborn infant be bad enough to deserve the death penalty?), but because they are not Israelites (not god's people) and god has decided that their land will belong to his people.

If we're sticking to context, then those commandments only apply to those belonging to the twelve tribes. god's chosen people, the only ones he gave those commandments to...the same people who also have to follow all those other laws that make sure they're members of the tribe and following the tribe's god, like circumcising the boys and not eating shellfish, etc.

Context.

[merrily]

79. And that relates to whether the Bible says Joseph was poor when Jesus was born how?

FYI, I am not having any argument about religion or what God said, if anything, let alone what he meant when he said it. I have very carefully kept my statements to what the Bible actually says and, to a much lesser extent, what things were like several thousand years ago.

And I don't know how many times I should have to post that the Bible says some nasty things and some inconsistent things before someone catches on that I am arguing religious beliefs.

[merrily]

16. There's a lot of condemnation of greed, self-centeredness and heartlessness in the Bible.

You can call that socialism or you can call it being a decent human being living in a human society. Potayto, pohtahto.

[daredtowork]

26. But if you call it socialism, then you get to call some self-righteous bigots

on being hypocrites, present them with their own generously bookmarked Bible as evidence while you do it.

[merrily]

28. The same Jesus who said great things about helping the poor also said some stuff

about criticizing others. I'm certainly guilty of that, so I'm not certainly not in a position to cast any stones, as it were, in the direction of anyone else. I'm just sayin', though.

[daredtowork]

32. He did...but take what Jesus "said" with a grain of salt.

For one thing, the Bible is relating what Jesus "said" from second hand sources.

Secondly, those second-hand sources were translated from Aramaic to Hebrew to Latin to a European language (usually English) to American English with many political agendas inserted along the way.

For instance, women in the 17th century preferred the Geneva Bible over the King James Bible because the Geneva Bible did not contain as many overtly misogynistic statements and rules.

[merrily]

35. Now you moved the goalpost to an entirely different discussion.

[daredtowork]

37. What was the goal? I was celebrating the "socialist" aspects of the Bible

...in line with the theme Jesus wasn't born rich. Yet you and brooklynite are nitpicking for some reason? I don't get why, but this is getting away from the theme of the OP.

[merrily]

40. Indeed, what was the goal?

BTW, I was "celebrating" the same things you were. I simply made the point that the word socialist was not the only way to describe them.

As far as straying from the OP, I think that may have happened because nothing in the Bible backs up Gene Robinson's claim that Jesus was born poor, as the very first reply to the OP accurately points out.

[daredtowork]

41. haha, okay I apologize, I misunderstood

Per my previous remark, nothing in the Bible actually backs up anything! (At least the American versions).

[merrily]

44. Yes, I've had that discussion before. However, if you are posting on a thread talking about

how much money Joseph and Mary had or didn't have when Jesus was born, you have to start somewhere or just say bah humbug to the whole concept of the OP. (Reply 36 is a good example of the latter approach.)

In my view, whether Jesus existed or not, the story is more awesome if he were comfortable financially and still had such a great heart for the poor, the helpless, even the imprisoned. Poor people empathizing with poor people is not as hard!

[daredtowork]

47. Very good point

I imagine he could make good money if he wanted to with his carpentry skills.

[merrily]

48. Joseph? Yes. (The OP is talking about the alleged finances of the family when Jesus was born.)

[daredtowork]

50. Jesus had skills, too, I thought.

I'm almost sure I remember Jesus undergoing some carpentry apprenticeship. So whether or not he came from wealthy family, he could have have made a good living for himself.

[merrily]

52. Jesus was also a carpenter. (I don't know that the Bible talks of apprenticeship as such. I assume

he would have learned from his father. ) At age 30, the age Jesus was when he started his "public ministry" as they call it in church, he would have been well beyond the apprenticeship stage anyway. I'd be surprised if his carpentry skills were not pretty good by the time he was 18 or younger. He probably starting "helping" his father while he was still in diapers, just as all children love to do.

But, as i said, the OP is about the finances of Joseph and Mary when Jesus was born.

[WillyT]

64. That's What You Got ??? - You May Have Read The OP... But...

Either You Did Not Read Or Understand The OA.

Original Article.

[merrily]

65. I've read the Bible cover to cover several times. (Have you?) As to matters about Joseph and Mary,

the Bible is the authoritative source, not the OA.

[WillyT]

70. Yeah... I Have... The Bible As Literature... A Couple Of Times...

Had no skin in the game... I don't believe... allowed me to see it from a neutral view point.

Interesting stuff...

Question: Where did Cain's wife come from ???

[merrily]

71. Do you think changing the subject will make you any "righter" about whether Joseph

was poor? You did try the identical tactic when you were mistaken about "manger" being a good word for a barn, so it seems to be your go to. There is no shame in being uninformed or mistaken, but how you react to having been uninformed or mistaken can be telling.

BTW, don't assume you know anything about my religious beliefs, even whether I have any at all. You'll most likely be wrong. At least, every DUer who has, for some odd reason, felt compelled to try try that has been wrong.

So, what did all your reading of the Bible tell you about what it is in the Bible that implies that Joseph was poor?

[WillyT]

72. Because... As The Bishop Says... The King Of Kings Was Born In A Barn...

[merrily]

67. PS My replying to a specific post to me does not mean my reply equals all I got from the OP.

[brooklynite]

9. AS I recall, Jesus got a tidy chest of gold a few days later...

Poor investments in the market?

[WillyT]

19. What ??? - Joseph And Mary Were Broke... But Once Jesus Was Born It Was All Null And Void ???

That some Wisemen came and handed him riches somehow negates the struggles of his family ???

Sounds like professional sports...

Came from the ghetto... made a name for yourself... now you are financial wizard.

[merrily]

33. Unless you can cite a biblical verse to show that Joseph and Mary were broke, you

might think about ceasing repetition of that assumption.

[WillyT]

39. You Tell Me...

Jesus was born into oppression. Joseph and Mary, and the Jewish community of which they were a part, were living under an occupation by a cruel and powerful regime. They lived in a backwater small town and didn’t have two denarii to rub together. Joseph couldn’t afford any sort of comfortable place to lodge with his about-to-deliver pregnant wife (who had become pregnant, let us not forget, as an unwed teenage girl).

Imagine his panic when she went into labor in a barn! Neither Mary nor Joseph had the usual experienced midwives around to guide them through this frightening experience for first-time parents. No one to tell her when to push. Nothing much to use in cleaning up the baby and his mother after the birth, no place to dispose of the placenta. And it’s cold in Bethlehem in winter. Just two young kids experiencing the panic, pain, and then the miracle, of new birth.

It is now impossible to imagine the radical nature of the claim of Christianity: that God—Almighty God—would choose the squalor of a barn and the oppressed community of the Jews into which to be born into humankind. In the ancient world, no god worth his weight would choose anything but grandeur and wealth for his surroundings, which had to be proper for any “king.”

So why did the God of the Hebrew people choose such a scandalous setting for becoming human? Because if God meant to be “one of us,” it would have to be to the least of us, the most troubled and despised, the most looked down upon—in order to demonstrate God’s own empathy with the poor, marginalized, and oppressed, and to bring them hope. The rest of Jesus’s life would focus on these people considered the last, the lost, and the least.

From the link at the OP.

You did read the article... right ???

Rev. V. Gene Robinson is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, in Washington, D.C., and the retired Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Follow him on Twitter @BishopGRobinson

[merrily]

43. No, I asked you first. As for Robinson, I can't help what he says. Does he claim infalliblility?

Does Robinson ever say why he assumes Joseph and Mary were poor? What his source for that claim is? The Bible never says Joseph and Mary were poor. Indeed, their very journey and their arrival at the inn, looking for a room, which I have to assume they intended to pay for, rather than cheating the innkeeper, suggest otherwise. So does Joseph's trade of being a carpenter. And, for all we know, Jesus and Marry may have had family money, but we don't even have to get that far. Nothing in the Bible says they were poor and some things at least suggest they were not poor.

[WillyT]

51. Well merrily... You Bring Up Provacative Points... But I'm Gonna Go With The Bishop On This One...

[merrily]

53. Going with the Bishop on Joseph, as opposed to going with the Bible? Okay. It's a free country.

Btw, I was not the first to have pointed out on this thread that the Bible never said Jesus was poor. See Reply 1.

[WillyT]

55. It Was Pretty Much Implied...

Most people got that.

Why do resist it ?

Not accusing you of anything... but you seem to be going against the accepted narrative.

Why is that ?

[merrily]

63. No, it was not pretty much implied. If anything was implied, it

was that Joseph had some money when Jesus was born and got more within a few days. Several people have posted that and it's true. Why do you resist that? You, on the other hand, have not cited a single thing from the the Bible that implies that Jesus was poor. I resist that because nothing in the Bible says or implies what you and the Bishop claim; and what little the Bible does say implies the contrary of what you and the Bishop claim.

Most people did not "get" that Jesus was poor because the Bible implies it. The Bible was not even available to most people for many, many centuries and most people still don't read it cover to cover--which is the ONLY way anyone can make a statement like "The Bible never implies Joseph and Mary were poor." . The church taught people that Jesus was poor, probably not always for great reasons.

And that teaching by the Church, motivated by good or ill is what "most people" are repeating, not anything said or implied in the Bible.

[merrily]

20. In fairness, the OP says "born" poor.

Last edited Fri Dec 26, 2014, 11:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Actually it's more the error of a society that wanted to make poverty seem more acceptable. Most people who attend church regularly--even an opulent church--had it drummed into them that Jesus was poor.

[WillyT]

73. So Tell Us... Was Jesus And His Parents Middle Class... The 1% ???

Which is it?

[merrily]

76. I have said what I mean several times. Why do you keep

trying to change the subject, rather than supporting your own position about what the Bible implies?

If the Bible implies that Joseph was poor, as you assert, you should be able to point to something in the Bible from which that inference can fairly be drawn. How about pointing out those things before changing the subject?

[WillyT]

82. Ok...

Luke 2:22-40. Purification of the Virgin—Presentation of the Babe in the Temple-Scene There with Simeon and Anna.

22, 24. her purification—Though the most and best copies read "their," it was the mother only who needed purifying from the legal uncleanness of childbearing. "The days" of this purification for a male child were forty in all (Le 12:2, 4), on the expiry of which the mother was required to offer a lamb for a burnt offering, and a turtle dove or a young pigeon for a sin offering. If she could not afford a lamb, the mother had to bring another turtle dove or young pigeon; and, if even this was beyond her means, then a portion of fine flour, but without the usual fragrant accompaniments of oil and frankincense, as it represented a sin offering (Le 12:6-8; 5 -11). From the intermediate offering of "a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons," we gather that Joseph and the Virgin were in poor circumstances (2Co 8 ), though not in abject poverty. Being a first-born male, they "bring him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord." All such had been claimed as "holy to the Lord," or set apart to sacred uses, in memory of the deliverance of the first-born of Israel from destruction in Egypt, through the sprinkling of blood (Ex 13:2). In lieu of these, however, one whole tribe, that of Levi, was accepted, and set apart to occupations exclusively sacred (Nu 3:11-38); and whereas there were two hundred seventy-three fewer Levites than first-born of all Israel on the first reckoning, each of these first-born was to be redeemed by the payment of five shekels, yet not without being "presented (or brought) unto the Lord," in token of His rightful claim to them and their service (Nu 3:44-47; 18:15, 16). It was in obedience to this "law of Moses," that the Virgin presented her babe unto the Lord, "in the east gate of the court called Nicanor's Gate, where she herself would be sprinkled by the priest with the blood of her sacrifice" [Lightfoot]. By that Babe, in due time, we were to be redeemed, "not with corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ" (1Pe 1:18, 19), and the consuming of the mother's burnt offering, and the sprinkling of her with the blood of her sin offering, were to find their abiding realization in the "living sacrifice" of the Christian mother herself, in the fulness of a "heart sprinkled from an evil conscience," by "the blood which cleanseth from all sin."

Link: http://biblehub.com/luke/2-22.htm

[merrily]

84. That is not the Bible, but someone interpreting it for you.

News flash. People who are penniless in the year 1--and that was your claim-- don't make "intermediate" offerings or have money to pay for hotel rooms. And note, they did NOT make the offering of flour, which was allowed to a poor person. If anything, what you have quoted refutes your claims of being broke and penniless.

[WillyT]

85. So The Bible Is The End All, Be All, Of This Discussion ???

[TDale313]

17. While I don't know if you can say Mary & Joseph were poor...

It's pretty clear that there are many statements and actions in the gospels attributed to Jesus that speak to caring for the poor. He also (if you believe the stories...) attacked the money changers at the temple and said it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. So there's that...

[merrily]

23. Agree. "Blessed are the poor..." But the moneychangers story has a whole other level to it.

At Passover, Jews of Bliblical times had to travel to Jerusalem from wherever they lived AND they also had to provide the priests with an animal for sacrifice in the temple. Those who had a long way to travel might not have always been able to bring an animal on the journey. So, they had to buy an animal to fulfill their duty to God, as they saw it. However, if they had traveled a long distance, they also had to exchange their foreign currency for Israeli money, in order to buy the animal they needed to fulfill their duty to God, as they saw it. That's why the money changers were inside the temple to begin with.

I don't think that Jesus's reaction to the money changers was simply that they were in the the temple, which would have been most convenient for the religious pilgrims. I suspect strongly that his anger came because that they were profiting, maybe even gouging, because someone was trying to fulfill his duty to God. Had they just been making an even exchange of Israeli shekels for, say, Greek drachmas, as a service to the pilgrims, to facilitate their fulfilling their religious duty, I can't imagine why he would have been so angry.

[merrily]

45. Anyone can say anything. Can anyone back up the statement that Joseph was poor is the issue.

It's been repeated in churches so often that it's taken as gospel, literally and figuratively. Thing is, the Bible never so much as suggests Joseph was poor and says several things that suggest he may not have been. Ditto Jesus, during his ministry. (e.g., the NT says Judas carried the purse for the group.)

[TDale313]

54. And my point was simply...

You don't even need Jesus, Mary, and Joseph to have been poor for the underlying point this seems to be making that "get as rich as you can" and "treat poor people like shit" don't appear to be a big part of Jesus' message. That if that is how you live and you consider yourself a Christian, it's possible you've lost the plot

[merrily]

66. I got your point and have said about the same all over this thread.

Replying to a post does not automatically mean I am disagreeing with it!

But I also think it important to note that saying Joseph was poor does not make it so, even if it's been said by clergy for centuries.

(Again, if you start from the point that the Bible tells us accurate things about Jesus, Mary and Joseph which you kind of have to do in order to point out that the Bible never says Jesus was poor. There are certain fights I's just as soon avoid because I don't enjoy them at all-and whether or not the historical Jesus ever existed, even as an ordinary man, is one of them.)

[jwirr]

22. Jesus got it but the rw do not - they just think well if it was good enough for our Lord then it is

good enough for the poor, etc. They turn every concern for the poor into a negative example even if they have to twist it till it breaks.

[merrily]

49. Well, they conveniently put the emphasis on voluntarily helping vs. having the government make you

help. (And, of course, on message boards, anyway, they all claim to help voluntarily.)

That's when I point out that Jesus also said to pay your taxes and the Roman government used at least some of those to provide bread and circus (aka food and entertainment) to the masses. And also point out that I doubt Jesus would have made a point about whether the government was helping the poor and sick or an individual citizen was, as long as the poor and sick got helped.

[JaneyVee]

34. What's interesting to me is that, for someone born to...

Such fanfare, his youth and adolescence are such a mystery. Its like no one cared about him once he was born. Hmmm, that sounds like the rightwing mantra of love the fetus, who cares about the child.

[merrily]

38. I don't know. A newborn is not the same as a fetus.

Last edited Sat Dec 27, 2014, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

I have to think that, in the year 1 B.C. Mary got a lot of shit for being pregnant and giving birth while unmarried. That is still problematic in 2014, though, mercifully, not as much as it was a few decades ago. Anyway, IMO, Joseph must have been a very kind man and/or a man who was desperate to marry and/or raise a child.

We don't read a lot in the new testament about the fetus or Mary's pregnancy. There is the story about the angel (aka a total stranger) meeting her on the road and giving her the news.

We do read a bit about Jesus's bris, the escape of Joseph, Mary and the infant to Egypt and Jesus Bar Mitvah. But just a bit. The parts of the NT that focus on Jesus's life at all do focus on his teachings after he reaches adulthood.

ETA: The NT also contains stories about Joseph having a dream that Mary was carrying the child of God and some other dreams or vision of a couple of others to the same effect. But, in all, they are not much longer than the story of Jesus "preaching to the elders" at his Bar Mitzvah and his family being frantic because they thought he had disappeared.

[Moonwalk]

77. What was the theme of his bar mitzvah and what gifts did he get?

[merrily]

78. What is your actual question, if any?

[blkmusclmachine]

36. Fantasyland

[hrmjustin]

80. I always love reading The Right Reverend Robinson's work. n/t.

[Rhiannon12866]

86. Locking, sorry, but threads discussing religion are prohibited in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978


RELIGION
Threads about current events related to religion, and threads about church-state issues are permitted under normal circumstances.

Threads about the existence/non-existence of God, threads discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of religion in general, and threads discussing the truth/untruth of religious dogma are not permitted under normal circumstances and should be posted under Religion.

Open discussion of religion is permitted during very high-profile news events which are heavily covered across all newsmedia.