"Silver or gold I do not have"

razzelflabben · Feb 9, 2010

razzelflabben said:
got the wrong story, sorry, toooo much multi tasking....how about getting back to the issue of where your money comes from now, scripture is scripture and you have been shown scripture that says your money is from God, not self...

probinson said:
For starters, if you want me to comment on scriptures you've posted, please post the scriptures and not just the references. Also, when you say "scripture says", or "scripture tells us", please be more specific. If you believe that "scripture says" something, please post the scripture that says it.

But I'll do your work for you one last time;
Proverbs 22:1-2 (NIV)
A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold. Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.

This is not saying God makes people "rich" or "poor". It is saying that whether you are rich or poor, God is your Maker.
1 Samuel 2:7-8 (NIV)
The LORD sends poverty and wealth; he humbles and he exalts. He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor. "For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world.

Ah, finally a scripture that seems to support your theology.

However, we must consider "the whole counsel of scripture", right? In doing so, it is clear, even from the other scriptures that you've posted, that whether or not we will have financial success is very largely dependent upon our own actions and choices. Lazy hands, diligent hands, etc.

now hold on just one minute...there are two major points that you seem to think we disagree on, but we don't and you need to be fair enough to admit that we don't disagree on the....1. we both agree that if you have a bill due, money is needed to zero out the account, no debate, never was, don't foresee there ever being any, it would be nice if you admitted that....2. no one has to my knowledge, certainly I have never suggested that we can sit back and do nothing with the gifts God has given, I'm not even sure where you get this idea and when I asked you before where you got that, you ignored me to continue to suggest this is what I am saying...in fact, I asked you several times in the same post to stop trying to make it sound like I was saying something I am not...without doubt, we need to use the gift of God, the gift of ability to work and make wealth, but that isn't what we are discussing right now...what we are discussing is whether or not wealth is given by God or by our own hands...this scripture is so clear it's scary, wealth and poverty both are subjected to God's authority...

2 Corinthians 8:13-15 (NIV)
For this is not for the ease of others and for your affliction, but by way of equality-- at this present time your abundance being a supply for their need, so that their abundance also may become a supply for your need, that there may be equality; as it is written, "HE WHO gathered MUCH DID NOT HAVE TOO MUCH, AND HE WHO gathered LITTLE HAD NO LACK."

This does not say anything about God sending wealth.
Deuteronomy 8:17 (NIV)
You may say to yourself, "My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me."

As we've already covered, it is God who gives us the power to obtain wealth. It is not by my power, which is what this scripture says.

notice we are told to avoid the boast of it being at our own hands...

Proverbs 10:22 (NIV)
The blessing of the LORD brings wealth, and he adds no trouble to it.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The Amplified Bible says that God's blessing brings "[true] riches". I don't disagree with that.
Matthew 6:24-25, 31 (NIV)
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?
....
So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?'

Again, I don't see the point you're trying to make. This does not say that God sends wealth. It simply says that God will take care of us.

right, wealth, the things we need to survive, comes from God.

And again, none of these scriptures "...tell us that God gives us wealth."

Now, have I missed any scriptures that you've posted? If I have, please post them (scripture and reference), and I'll address them as well.

btw, isn't the point of the discussion to discuss and search not to try to convince another, even you admitted the one passage supported what I was saying...

what you are missing is the point, but hey, that doesn't surprise me.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 10, 2010

razzelflabben said:
where I find this all interesting, as I have in the past, you seem to be missing one thing....they left their businesses to follow Jesus....now I don't know about you, but if I left my business, to follow someone, live with them, work with them, learn from them, it wouldn't take very long for me to become impoverished, my business in shambles..

No offense--but the theory you're proposing doesn't deal with the rest of what Christ said on the issue..or the scriptures for that matter. Additionally, it gives room for God to violate his own concerns with ensuring that believers always provide for the IMMEDIATE needs of their relatives/family----and unless it was the case that Peter/the disciples left everything to follow their families with their own blood becoming destitute/broke and homeless, I think that we need to go back/re-examine the text in how we see it.

..I think we cannot loose site of the fact, that they left behind even their families, (as we see in your above reference) to follow Jesus, that would suggest to us that they left their businesses as well, especially when they left their ships to follow as well as their father....

As it relates to the disciples/their buisnesses, some thoughts on the issue of their "leaving behind everything"......as it relates to Peter (who was MARRIED/HAD a FAMILY to take care of) could afford to follow Jesus for a time & yet go back to their buisnesss of fishing rather quickly after Christ died. Some things from one of the articles referenced earlier by Jerome Murphy O’Connor on the disciples background, Jerome Murphy O’Connor - DISCUSSES in depth another view on how those who were fishermen were actually required to be EXTREMELY competitive/educated on many points in order to survive in the world they lived in:
..

We have a surprisingly good picture of the scale of Simon Peter and Andrew's fishing operation. They worked in partnership (Luke 5:6-8 ) with James and John, the sons of Zebedee (Luke 5:9-11 ), who had employees (Mk.1:20). They were free to start (John 21:1 ) and stop work (Lk.5:11) when it suited them. The impression that they were men of substance who controlled their own lives is confirmed by the quality of their house at Capernaum. Known as the House of Peter since the fourth century, it is larger than most of the other houses excavated in Capernaum.

But that is not all. Although no evangelist was interested in providing his readers with a detailed picture of the families of Jesus' disciples or of their business practices, we can read between the lines. Given the average size of families at the time, it seems very likely that more of the family must have been involved in the fishing business on the Sea of Galilee than just Simon Peter and Andrew, and the family income would have been proportionally greater than that of two men working alone. Against this background of a relatively well-off family, it becomes possible to understand how Simon Peter and Andrew were financially able to drop their work and become, first, disciples of John the Baptist (John 1:42) and then disciples of Jesus.

How Reliable are the Gospel Accounts?

Let us return to the key question raised earlier: How reliable are the gospel accounts? Radical scepticism regarding their historical reliability began with form criticism, a way of studying the Gospels that developed in the years immediately after the First World War. Form criticism insisted that the reliability of the Gospel tradition was marred by the "creativity" of the believing community. No longer were the stories about Jesus regarded as authenticated by a chain of tradition; instead, the stories could not be attached to any specific individual and could not be verified. Reports were treated as rumours.

In 1962, however, the German scholar Heinz Schurmann pointed out that there was also a pre-Resurrection community of disciples who had known Jesus personally and who had preserved memories of what he had said and done. The post-Resurrection community, according to Schurmann, was simply the continuation of the group that Jesus had gathered around him. The dominant members of the pre-Resurrection community became the leaders of the much larger post-Resurrection community. These were the Galilean fishermen, and it is precisely at this point that what we have learned about them becomes significant.

When read carefully against the background of this ancient industry, the scattered references to Simon Peter and Andrew coalesce into a coherent picture. They came from a prosperous, assimilated Jewish middle-class family. Speaking both Aramaic and Greek, they were brought up to serve in an administrative as well as a practical role in an essential major industry. They knew how to plan and organize. As experienced businessmen, they were astute enough to move their home in order to take advantage of a tax break. Such shrewdness, one can be sure, also manifested itself in the way they handled competition from the many other Fishermen on the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. They were anything but "uneducated, common men."

Business and profit however, did not completely satisfy them. They looked for something more spiritual and were prepared to make sacrifices to attain it. Their background and training, ensured that they would carefully balance risk against gain. They were not gullible, and nothing in their personalities even hints at a tendency towards self-deception.

From what we know of their characters, it is clear that Simon Peter and Andrew would have functioned as a conservative control in the creative ferment of the post-Resurrection community. They had the authority of eyewitnesses, the sobriety to report accurately and the intelligence to discern between developments that Jesus would approve of and those that he would reject

Seeing that seemed more than relevant on the issue. For one cannot have a buisness they left behind and then IMMEDIATELY go back to it QUICKLY (3days time) if its in shambles. Even outside of that factor, there's still the reality that the disciples did not have it like today where if you don't pay the bills, you have your car/home taken away...as they still owned their own material. . Additionally, as it concerns the reality of the disciples and owning boats, there's already basis in the Word to show that the disciples owned their own property.

Luke 5:2-3
3 Then He got into one of the boats, which was Simon's, and asked him to put out a little from the land. And He sat down and taught the multitudes from the boat.
NKJV

With the disciples being fishermen, it was one of the reasons why it was SMART for Christ to chose them as He did, seeing the number of times they'd travel over seas and the boats/resources they had available would come in handy for ministry......for how many times was it the case that Christ had to flee in BOATS in order to escape the crowds crushing him--or travel extensively in an effective manner without having to pay for others to transport? (Matthew 9:1-3 / , Matthew 13:1-3 / , Matthew 14:12-14/ , vMatthew 15:38-39 / ,Mark 5:17-19 , Mark 6:31-33 / /, Mark 8:12-14 / , Luke 8:21-23 , etc )

Mark 3:8-10 /
When they heard all he was doing, many people came to him from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon. 9Because of the crowd he told his disciples to have a small boat ready for him, to keep the people from crowding him. 10For he had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him.

Mark 4
[ The Parable of the Sower ] Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water's edge.

Mark 4:12

The Parable of the Mustard Seed

30Again he said, "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? 31It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. 32Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade." 33With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. 34He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

Jesus Calms the Storm

35That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, "Let us go over to the other side." 36Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him.

Of course, an entire side discussion can begin on the issue of what v37 in Mark 4 means---as it relates to what the phrase "there were also other boats with him" mean..and whether that was indicative of the disciples owning the boats or others outside the disciples traveling with Jesus. But that can be saved for another day

Going back to the issue, the disciples having many resources is more than understandable---especially seeing the reality of competition that existed back then as it did today, with owning a boat being what was desirable when fishing/traveling. For as mentioned before, Peter, Andrew, James and John were all small family business men...and the family business was fishing, with them owning their own boats/resources and in no need of RENTING anything from others......or "stealing"...though in the case of the latter, that would have been hilarious if it was the case. For then, Jesus called them first to follow, can you imagine their surprise at being caught trying to "get a new ride"/play it off as if it was theirs..and then realizing later that they were going to need either some SERIOUS cash to keep the facade going that they were legit....or start borrowing from others without asking

And as others were trying to do their work fishing, asking to borrow boats for extensive periods of time would be like one coming up to you asking to borrow one of your cars to take a road trip for 6 months--even though you're limited. IMHO, it'd be silly to suppose the disciples had to either STEAL or RENT boats since fishermen had their livelihoods based in what was their OWN property when it came to fishing...unless, of course, the disciples were never SELF-EMPLOYED and having to work under another person continually...which is the opposite of what those trying to make their own companies try to avoid at some point when doing their own thing

As it relates to the costs of boats, people may need to research how it was in Jewish culture when it came to boats. For they had capacity to carry a good number of people..and were not small deal. For illustration, as I was able to get from Study Bible:

6a00e55043abd0883401157049bdd3970c-320wi

Not something that's cheap in the slightest....and the boats themselves had both fore and aft decks alongside a central mas and sail, with positions for two sets of oars on both sides. With there being multiple decks, it's makes sense as to why Jesus could be sound asleep on a cushion since that was at a lower level of the boat, Mark 4:37-39 Mark 4. If that's what ALL had in the boats following Jesus, then perhaps it's a sign of the economy of the times where many were on a good level of living/status. But sincerly, as such a boat would have cost a GOOD bit/taken much investment, it's unlikely to be something all had.....unless one is good was as a small business owner or home based business owner and tradesman.

Sincerly, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe the disciples had many boats at their disposal for the work that they did.

razzelflabben · Feb 10, 2010

Easy G (G²);54125392 said:
No offense--but the theory you're proposing doesn't deal with the rest of what Christ said on the issue..or the scriptures for that matter. Additionally, it gives room for God to violate his own concerns with ensuring that believers always provide for the IMMEDIATE needs of their relatives/family----and unless it was the case that Peter/the disciples left everything to follow their families with their own blood becoming destitute/broke and homeless, I think that we need to go back/re-examine the text in how we see it.

in what way? Sorry, I just don't see how it exempts us from working as we are told by God to do...what did Christ say...seems to me that Jesus told the disciples exactly what I just said, read Matt. 10, especially 37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

I guess I just don't understand your concern here in relation to what I said, much less what Jesus commanded....

As it relates to the disciples/their buisnesses, some thoughts on the issue of their "leaving behind everything"......as it relates to Peter (who was MARRIED/HAD a FAMILY to take care of) could afford to follow Jesus for a time & yet go back to their buisnesss of fishing rather quickly after Christ died. Some things from one of the articles referenced earlier snipped for space

But that is not all. Although no evangelist was interested in providing his readers with a detailed picture of the families of Jesus' disciples or of their business practices, we can read between the lines. Given the average size of families at the time, it seems very likely that more of the family must have been involved in the fishing business on the Sea of Galilee than just Simon Peter and Andrew, and the family income would have been proportionally greater than that of two men working alone. Against this background of a relatively well-off family, it becomes possible to understand how Simon Peter and Andrew were financially able to drop their work and become, first, disciples of John the Baptist (John 1:42) and then disciples of Jesus.

and the point was that they left their jobs, they didn't keep working, even this part of this post attests to that, let me quote for you..."to drop their work and become, first, disciples of John the Baptist (John 1:42) and then disciples of Jesus." Now the basic concept here is that they sought Jesus first, and where I know that most prosperity teachers suggest we seek God first, the actual practice seems lacking which is where much of the contention lies...consider for example the issue of who gives us money (resently just talked about that) if we obtain our own wealth, we will seek the money needed to meet our needs before we seek God...if on the other hand, God gives us wealth (as I showed scriptures of support) then we are free to, like the disciples, seek God first and allow the money at God's command...(this part is only an example and should not serve as the end of all I am suggesting)

Let us return to the key question raised earlier: How reliable are the gospel accounts? Radical scepticism regarding their historical reliability began with form criticism, a way of studying the Gospels that developed in the years immediately after the First World War. Form criticism insisted that the reliability of the Gospel tradition was marred by the "creativity" of the believing community. No longer were the stories about Jesus regarded as authenticated by a chain of tradition; instead, the stories could not be attached to any specific individual and could not be verified. Reports were treated as rumours.

this gets us way off topic and all I will say here is that I believe, because I have as of yet found no reason to doubt, that the Word of God is just that, the word of God. It is inerrant and on this thread, I will not deviate from the discussion at hand to discuss why I believe it to be inerrant. If you want to go down that path, that is between you and God. Maybe some other time we can discuss it's inerrancy in detail.

In 1962, however, the German scholar Heinz snip for space handled competition from the many other Fishermen on the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. They were anything but "uneducated, common men."

I'm not arguing any of this, all I'm saying is that they left their businesses to follow Jesus, something that in the worlds wisdom would be foolishness.

snip for space

From what we know of their characters, it is clear that Simon Peter and Andrew would have functioned as a conservative control in the creative ferment of the post-Resurrection community. They had the authority of eyewitnesses, the sobriety to report accurately and the intelligence to discern between developments that Jesus would approve of and those that he would reject

Seeing that seemed more than relevant on the issue. For one cannot have a buisness they left behind and then IMMEDIATELY go back to it QUICKLY (3days time) if its in shambles. Even outside of that factor, there's still the reality that the disciples did not have it like today where if you don't pay the bills, you have your car/home taken away...as they still owned their own material. . Additionally, as it concerns the reality of the disciples and owning boats, there's already basis in the Word to show that the disciples owned their own property.

so are you suggesting that they only "followed" Jesus for 3 days and therefore lost nothing but three days pay to follow Christ? I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to disagree if that is truly what you are suggesting, if you are suggesting something else, you need to fill me in, I missed it.

snip for space

With the disciples being fishermen, it was one of the reasons why it was SMART for Christ to chose them as He did, seeing the number of times they'd travel over seas and the boats/resources they had available would come in handy for ministry......for how many times was it the case that Christ had to flee in BOATS in order to escape the crowds crushing him--or travel extensively in an effective manner without having to pay for others to transport? (Matthew 9:1-3 / , Matthew 13:1-3 / , Matthew 14:12-14/ , vMatthew 15:38-39 / ,Mark 5:17-19 , Mark 6:31-33 / /, Mark 8:12-14 / , Luke 8:21-23 , etc )
snip for space

no problem...can't disagree with this, it's scripture...and is doesn't disagree with what I said....

Of course, an entire side discussion can begin on the issue of what v37 in Mark 4 means---as it relates to what the phrase "there were also other boats with him" mean..and whether that was indicative of the disciples owning the boats or others outside the disciples traveling with Jesus. But that can be saved for another day

Going back to the issue, the disciples having many resources is more than understandable---especially seeing the reality of competition that existed back then as it did today, with owning a boat being what was desirable when fishing/traveling. For as mentioned before, Peter, Andrew, James and John were all small family business men...and the family business was fishing, with them owning their own boats/resources and in no need of RENTING anything from others......or "stealing"...though in the case of the latter, that would have been hilarious if it was the case. For then, Jesus called them first to follow, can you imagine their surprise at being caught trying to "get a new ride"/play it off as if it was theirs..and then realizing later that they were going to need either some SERIOUS cash to keep the facade going that they were legit....or start borrowing from others without asking

???? you lost me???? So if I have a thriving business, leave it to follow some guy, thus keeping my car, and using that car on occasion to make a buck, I am still owner of a thriving business? How does that work? I'm not following your logic here....Let's say, I make tents for a living (Paul remember) I give up making tents to follow Christ, to become His servant...does that mean I give up my equipment and never make another tent ever? We know from scripture that Paul did still make tents but that doesn't mean his tent business was still thriving and making him rich, in fact scripture (though some argue the point) indicates that whereas he still sometimes made tents, he was hardly spending enough time to keep the business thriving and prosperous...do you know how much time is necessary to make a business thriving and prosperous? How could I keep it at that level or greater if my time and resources are not being focused on other endevors?

And as others were trying to do their work fishing, asking to borrow boats for extensive periods of time would be like one coming up to you asking to borrow one of your cars to take a road trip for 6 months--even though you're limited. IMHO, it'd be silly to suppose the disciples had to either STEAL or RENT boats since fishermen had their livelihoods based in what was their OWN property when it came to fishing...unless, of course, the disciples were never SELF-EMPLOYED and having to work under another person continually...which is the opposite of what those trying to make their own companies try to avoid at some point when doing their own thing

???? I didn't suggest they didn't keep their tools?? what makes you think they had to get rid of all their tools just because their business was no longer prosperous and in shambles?

As it relates to the costs of boats, people may need to research how it was in Jewish culture when it came to boats. For they had capacity to carry a good number of people..and were not small deal. For illustration, as I was able to get from Study Bible:

Not something that's cheap in the slightest....and the boats themselves had both fore and aft decks alongside a central mas and sail, with positions for two sets of oars on both sides. With there being multiple decks, it's makes sense as to why Jesus could be sound asleep on a cushion since that was at a lower level of the boat, Mark 4:37-39 Mark 4. If that's what ALL had in the boats following Jesus, then perhaps it's a sign of the economy of the times where many were on a good level of living/status. But sincerly, as such a boat would have cost a GOOD bit/taken much investment, it's unlikely to be something all had.....unless one is good was as a small business owner or home based business owner and tradesman.

Sincerly, I don't think it's unreasonable to believe the disciples had many boats at their disposal for the work that they did.

???? Again, when did I suggest they didn't have boats or access to boats?

Gxg (G²) · Feb 10, 2010

razzelflabben said:
seems to me that Jesus told the disciples exactly what I just said, read Matt. 10, especially 37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ?

And again, there's a CONTEXT to the statements, as Jesus was always in line with all of the OT Law. And as the OT law made clear that believers/followers of God were to take care of their own (just as the same is also echoed in the NT when it comes to Paul's statements of those not providing for the needs of their family/relatives being worse than unbelievers), its faulty taking the scripture in the sense of saying those following God must abandon their own families to the point of leaving their own destitute. The scripture in Matthew 10 dealt SPECIFICALLY with issues of persecution...

they sought Jesus first, and where I know that most prosperity teachers suggest we seek God first, the actual practice seems lacking which is where much of the contention lies...consider for example the issue of who gives us money (resently just talked about that) if we obtain our own wealth, we will seek the money needed to meet our needs before we seek God...

Again, for your case to hold water, one would have to deal collectively with ALL of the NT admonitions of believers working jobs...as well as the OT, as it is EXCEPTIONALLY clear that God does not bless laziness....nor does he condone his people doing nothing/expecting him to drop blessings out of nowhere since God gives blessing as we seek him in doing what it is we're called to do. When working a job (or, temporarily working one to save money in wisdom as Proverbs advocates often so thatone can have funds when the time comes), it doesn't mean one is not seeking the Kingdom of God....or expecting him to work mightly on our behalf/do the miraculous.

....... It is inerrant and on this thread, I will not deviate from the discussion at hand to discuss why I believe it to be inerrant. If you want to go down that path, that is between you and God. Maybe some other time we can discuss it's inerrancy in detail.
)

To be clear, no one was asking you to discuss the scriptures being inerrant....though that would be a good discussion to have at some other point. But again, it was part of a quote being spoken.

........that they left their businesses to follow Jesus, something that in the worlds wisdom would be foolishness

Not saying they did not leave their businesses.....as all that is being said is that they were not foolish/left their businesses without making certain things were in order AND their immediate ones could be taken care of. Same thing Jesus did for his own mother when placing her in the care of John before he passed. Too many ministers today doing recklessness in the name of "faith" where they're working jobs and then claim "GOD CALLED ME TO BE A MISSIONARY!!!!"...procedding to leave the saved children/family behind without having others to take care of them, consequently leading in a FATHERLESS home or dysfunctional dynamics because they did not have their buisness together..

so are you suggesting that they only "followed" Jesus for 3 days and therefore lost nothing but three days pay to follow Christ?........

Honestly, in light of what the quote said, all that's being said is that the disciples were able to leave for as long as they did because they had their buisness together first. Hence, why they could go back to their buisness within 3 days of the Lord being dead (even though they had been following him for years) and still have something to win with. As the quote says:

We have a surprisingly good picture of the scale of Simon Peter and Andrew's fishing operation. They worked in partnership (Luke 5:6-8 ) with James and John, the sons of Zebedee (Luke 5:9-11 ), who had employees (Mk.1:20). They were free to start (John 21:1 ) and stop work (Lk.5:11) when it suited them

Again, the point being that they could AFFORD to do such because things were in order. If a buisness is self-sufficient---with things left in proper hands and it ensured that there will still be things in order for others to survive--its all good.

......So if I have a thriving business, leave it to follow some guy, thus keeping my car, and using that car on occasion to make a buck, I am still owner of a thriving business? How does that work? I'm not following your logic here....Let's say, I make tents for a living (Paul remember) I give up making tents to follow Christ, to become His servant...does that mean I give up my equipment and never make another tent ever? We know from scripture that Paul did still make tents but that doesn't mean his tent business was still thriving and making him rich,...............

Yes...but as the TEXT makes clear (in Acts 18/Acts 18:5), Paul made tents only when in a certain town. It was not something he had done for his entire life (or was planning to) or had OTHERS HE was providing for in the process such as family/children DEPENDENT on him. Additionally, as it concerns the culture, each Jewish boy learned a trade and tried to earn his living with it. Paul and Aquila ha dbeen trained in tentmaking, cutting and sewing the woven cloth of goats hair into tents. Tents were used to house soldiers, and so these tents may have been sold to the Roman Army. As a tentmaker, Paul was able to go wherever God led him since his trade was a MOBILE One. And with the Jews in that area being there as a result of being exiled from Rome, it was convient to have a trade one could do anywhere. This was radically different from the scenario of fishing which needed hands to be on deck at all times. .

The issue with tent making was that Paul earned his own living (just as I Corinthians 9:1-19/1 Corinthians 9:5 ), even though he taught that those who proclaim the Good News are entitled to be supported by their fellow believers. In observing the Mishnaic admonition, "Do not make of the Torah...a spade with which to dig" (which means, don't use your knowledge of spiritual things as a means of getting rich). This situation was a matter of Paul going beyond the call of duty---and as Corinthians makes clear, trying to avoid giving the appearance of doing things just to get money from the group since there was already suspicion on him

..........How could I keep it at that level or greater if my time and resources are not being focused on other endevors?

Again, with Peter and some of the others (James and John), as there were differing levels of fishing, if one came from a middle class background, then it was affordable for one to leave and come back with a job. As Mark 1 makes clear, again, James and John had a rich father who owned servants...and when they left the family buisness, the father had it covered. With Peter being their partner (Luke 5:9-11/ ( Matthew 4:17-19 / ), it was clear that when he left the buisness was not abandoned entirely.

Mark 1:14-20

The Calling of the First Disciples

14After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15"The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" 16As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 18At once they left their nets and followed him.

19When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

Again, James/John and Peter were all partners in a fishing buisness....and with things taken care of, it worked for them to go out. As it was, fishing was a lucrative industry with various levels.......But regardless of the minor or incidental details, what matters is that they were willing to follow Jesus--and it made a difference

For more on the issue:, on commentary on (Luke 5:9-11/with them leaving it all behind/the ramifications of it:

Fishing Nets

Fishermen have fished the waters of this lake for thousands of years. Occasionally people would fish with a hook and line (Matthew 17:24-27), but commercial fishing took place with nets and teams of fishermen to handle them. They primarily used two types of nets:

Casting net. Poorer fishermen who didn't own boats could use casting nets along the shore. The casting net was thrown out over the water. Weights at the edge would pull the net to the bottom, catching any fish that might be under it. The net opening was 10 to 20 feet (3 to 6 meters) in diameter. The fisherman would wade out to the net, and gather it in, bringing any fish to shore. The Greek word diktyon is the more general word used for "net for catching fish."[2] When used with Greek amphiblestron it indicated "a circular casting-net" (Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16).[3]

Seine net or drag net. These were large vertical wall-like nets that could be attached to the shore or to another boat. A boat could drag other end out into the water in a semicircular arc and then back to the shore again, pulling in the fish as it came. Then a team of fishermen on both ends of the net would heave it into shore. One might dive in the center to disentangle it from any rocks or obstructions on the bottom as the net dragged across. This net is sometimes indicated by the Greek word diktyon and once by sagene, "a large dragnet."[4]Another way to use this kind of net was to take it into deep water, often at night and sometimes with another boat, and lay it out the floats at the top of the net in a long line across the water. Fish might be driven into the net by the splashes of the fisherman. Then the ends would be pulled together surrounding a school of fish, and they would be pulled on board the boat.[5]

You can imagine the need for mending the nets. Disentangling fish from the nets sometimes broke the fibers, as did debris from the lake bottom, or the strain of too many fish. The hours must have been rugged. The best deep water fishing was at night, then the mornings would be given to mending the nets, sorting fish, and perhaps using casting nets along the shore if their nights labors hadn't "netted" any fish (Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16).

Peter and his brother Andrew, and their neighbors James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were partners, often working together as they fished the Sea of Galilee. They fished commercially. In addition to Capernaum, there were other commercial fishing towns: Bethsaida ("house of fishing") and Magdala (Migdal Nunaya, "bulwark of the fishes") or Tarichaea ("salting installation for fish," the Greek name of Magdala). They would sell their fish fresh in the local markets. The rest they would salt and dry for export as far as Spain.[6] As owners of their own ships who sometimes hired others to help, Peter and his partners should be regarded as members of the lower middle class, rather than a very low social class.[7]

.......................
James and John help Peter and Andrew as they pull first Peter's boat, and then their own boat up onto the shore. Then they leave everything where it is and begin to follow (akolutheo) Jesus.

...............

Leaving Everything and Following (5:11)

The final sentence of this passage marks a turning point for both Jesus and for the fisherman. "So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him" (5:11). There is both the negative and the positive, the leaving and the following.

I've wondered about Mrs. Peter and the other fisher families in Capernaum. Yes, Peter and the men came back often, since Jesus was using Capernaum as his base-of-operations in Galilee. But they were gone so much of the time. Did they rent out the boats to others who took over the business in their absence? Or did Zebedee, father of Peter's partners, help them out? Did the amazing two boatfulls of fish tide over the families until the fishermen returned? We don't know nor are we told.

What we are told is that while once Peter was catching fish, now he is catching men. And to do the second he had to stop doing the first.

Does this mean that we must all quit our jobs when we are called? No. But some must. We see others who became part of Jesus' band -- Levi, the tax collector, "got up, left everything, and followed him" (5:28). Excuses aren't accepted. "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God," Jesus told other would-be followers (9:57-62). The Rich Young Ruler was called to sell everything he had, and to come, follow Jesus, but didn't (18:22-23).

My friends, we cannot drag all of our lives behind us and still be obedient followers. Some things have to go. The good can be the enemy of the best. There is a letting go so we can follow fully. What can't you continue to do and still be a good disciple? About what is Jesus' speaking to you to leave behind?

razzelflabben · Feb 10, 2010

Easy G (G²);54127646 said:
And again, there's a CONTEXT to the statements, as Jesus was always in line with all of the OT Law. And as the OT law made clear that believers/followers of God were to take care of their own (just as the same is also echoed in the NT when it comes to Paul's statements of those not providing for the needs of their family/relatives being worse than unbelievers), its faulty taking the scripture in the sense of saying those following God must abandon their own families to the point of leaving their own destitute. The scripture in Matthew 10 dealt SPECIFICALLY with issues of persecution...

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how what I said brings you to the conclusion that we are not to provide for those that we are in charge of caring for...I just don't get how you get to that conclusion from what I and scripture says....

Again, for your case to hold water, one would have to deal collectively with ALL of the NT admonitions of believers working jobs...as well as the OT, as it is EXCEPTIONALLY clear that God does not bless laziness....nor does he condone his people doing nothing/expecting him to drop blessings out of nowhere since God gives blessing as we seek him in doing what it is we're called to do.

now the heart of what you are saying here, I agree with, which is what confuses me, where do you come to the conclusion from what I said, that we should never work, or care for those we are charged with caring for? I don't get where you come up with this argument from what I said, especially since I showed you scripture to support what I was saying.....

When working a job (or, temporarily working one to save money in wisdom as Proverbs advocates often so that one can have funds when the time comes), it doesn't mean one is not seeking the Kingdom of God...or expecting him to work mightly on our behalf/do the miraculous. To be clear, no one was asking you to discuss the scriptures being inerrant....though that would be a good discussion to have at some other point. But again, it was part of a quote being spoken..

exactly, but then again, that wasn't anywhere close to what I was saying or suggesting so I'm not sure how you want me to respond to that...I really need to know what you think I said before I can accurately respond to your accusations of my claim.

Not saying they did not leave their businesses.....as all that is being said is that they were not foolish/left their businesses without making certain things were in order AND their immediate ones could be taken care of.

but I never suggested they did, I simply pointed out that they left business that they might follow Christ....how do you get from that that I am suggesting that we should not care for our families? I don't understand the jump your making...please, please for the sake of communication if nothing else, you explain the jump you are making here....

Same thing Jesus did for his own mother when placing her in the care of John before he passed.

and yet He still left her...which is all I said about the disciples and their businesses...

Too many ministers today doing recklessness in the name of "faith" where they're working jobs and then claim "GOD CALLED ME TO BE A MISSIONARY!!!!"...procedding to leave the saved children/family behind without having others to take care of them, consequently leading in a FATHERLESS home or dysfunctional dynamics because they did not have their buisness together..

can't disagree with that either, in fact, we have counciled many about this very thing, but then again, that goes back to what you think I said vs. what I really said....what Jesus said....

Honestly, in light of what the quote said, all that's being said is that the disciples were able to leave for as long as they did because they had their buisness together first.

it also could mean that they did the work necessary to eat, and provide the basic needs while they studied under Christ....point is this, when our daily needs are met, we have a choice, we can keep working, or we can satisfy ourselves and focus all our attention on the Christ....

Hence, why they could go back to their buisness within 3 days of the Lord being dead (even though they had been following him for years) and still have something to win with.

oh good, that question is cleared up...they went back to work after years of dedicated following, the way you worded that I thought you were trying to say they only followed Christ for 3 days.....shooooooo.

As the quote says:

We have a surprisingly good picture of the scale of Simon Peter and Andrew's fishing operation. They worked in partnership (Luke 5:6-8 ) with James and John, the sons of Zebedee (Luke 5:9-11 ), who had employees (Mk.1:20). They were free to start (John 21:1 ) and stop work (Lk.5:11) when it suited them

no contest, that was never an issue with me or what I said....

Again, the point being that they could AFFORD to do such because things were in order. If a buisness is self-sufficient---with things left in proper hands and it ensured that there will still be things in order for others to survive--its all good.

or you could do another business, or work just enough to keep basic needs met, etc. in other words, there are lots of ways to take care of basic needs other than to work a business into thriving excess.

Yes...but as the TEXT makes clear (in Acts 18), Paul made tents only when in a certain town.

which was the point, but go on, I'm listening....

It was not something he had done for his entire life (or was planning to) or had OTHERS HE was providing for in the process such as family/children DEPENDENT on him.

okay, wait a moment, I'm lost again, because he was a tent maker and then pared down to go into full time ministry, he was exempt from all the promises of wealth because he didn't have a family? Is that what you really intent to say here? I'm getting more and more confused I think, as to what you think I said, or what you think it means...

Additionally, as it concerns the culture, each Jewish boy learned a trade and tried to earn his living with it. Paul and Aquila had been trained in tentmaking, cutting and sewing the woven cloth of goats hair into tents. Tents were used to house soldiers, and so these tents may have been sold to the Roman Army. As a tentmaker, Paul was able to go wherever God led him since his trade was a MOBILE One.

yep, and as fishermen, they could go wherever there was fish...as a Dr. anywhere there were sick people (which begs the question why Christ chose Luke, I mean, Jesus is a greater healer than any Dr. right?) etc. etc. etc.

And with the Jews in that area being there as a result of being exiled from Rome, it was convient to have a trade one could do anywhere. This was radically different from the scenario of fishing which needed hands to be on deck at all times. .

why? If we are fishing for self sufficiency, and not excess, why do we need more hands on deck then Jesus and the 12 disciples? Why wouldn't 13 people be enough to catch fish to live on for the 12 and the people they would have been responsible for?

The issue with tent making was that Paul earned his own living (just as I Corinthians 9:1-19), even though he taught that those who proclaim the Good News are entitled to be supported by their fellow believers. In observing the Mishnaic admonition, "Do not make of the Torah...a spade with which to dig" (which means, don't use your knowledge of spiritual things as a means of getting rich). This situation was a matter of Paul going beyond the call of duty---and as Corinthians makes clear, trying to avoid giving the appearance of doing things just to get money from the group since there was already suspicion on him

yep, he had a second job, to pay the bills, no problem...

Again, with Peter and some of the others (James and John), as there were differing levels of fishing, if one came from a middle class background, then it was affordable for one to leave and come back with a job. As Mark 1 makes clear, again, James and John had a rich father who owned servants...and when they left the family buisness, the father had it covered. With Peter being their partner, it was clear that when he left the buisness was not abandoned entirely.

lost me again...

Again, James/John and Peter were all partners in a fishing buisness....and with things taken care of, it worked for them to go out.

????? more scratching of my head....and how does that counter what I said?

Gxg (G²) · Feb 10, 2010

WileyCoyote said:
"After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. He told them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. "When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house." (Luke 10:1-7)

This was the way Jesus taught the disciples to minister. Go out two by two (Peter and John), taking nothing with them. When they were among the people, they would minister to their needs and stay at someone else's house and eat whatever the person gave them. The reason they were told to take nothing with them was because a "worker was worthy of his wages". They would work by ministering to the people in exchange for food and housing. They were not poor, however. You cannot leave gold, silver, tunics, sandals behind if you don't have it to leave behind.

Also in the previous chapter (Acts 2), the disciples performed many miracles in the temple courts and the people there ate, drank and sold their possessions and gave to anyone in need. It was a time of great fellowship and giving. Not one person was left wanting or in need. Considering the fact that not one person was left in need after all this giving, how poor could Peter and John really have been seeing as how both were present in the temple courts when all this giving was taking place?
.

Wanted to say earlier that on the issue of what you're saying, what it seems many may forget is that the work PETER/John and the apostles did was one involving a TRAVELING ministry/missionary endeavor. And when on the Mission FIELD, its a necessity for others to be housed/taken care of. And on the text, it may be hard to imagine at times (due to our usage of cars to traverse great distances in short amounts of time) that back in the day, they had to WALK everywhere they went...with it often taking WEEKS/Months to get to places...and would be very tired. So of course, for them, having to be provided for/taken care of was a BIG deal. The same is discussed in I Corinthians 9 when Paul discusses providing for those traveling

To say that they were "homeless" and without anything may not be proper reading of the text....and on the issue, seeing how often it was discussed in the Word that the disciples themselves HAD homes to go to if they chose to do so (and, for that matter, the SILVER and GOLD needed to keep them), it seems odd that people make it out that when they were on the Mission Field their status there was how it always was. On the issue, it would be odd to see Jesus asking his disciples to be "homeless" since not even he was in that position. As seen best in the article entitled "Jesus Was Not Poor" ( )

Jesus Was Not Poor

Jesus birth in a stable has led many to believe that Joseph and Mary were poor people and this has been used to make Christians believe that there is something spiritual and, therefore, desirable about being poor. However, the Bible in Luke 2:7 clearly tells us that Jesus was born in a stable only because there was no room in the inn. Joseph was a carpenter, a fairly rewarding occupation in Biblical times. He had money to pay for a room at the inn if one was available. He owned a donkey that Mary rode. Poor women made the journey for the census on foot. Matthew 2:11 says the three wise men, And they came into the house, and saw the Child with Mary his mother; and they fell down, and worshiped Him: and opening their treasures they presented to him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh. So Joseph and Mary apparently had enough money to rent a house where they had been living with their young son from His birth until He was almost two years old. King Herod had ascertained from the wise men the time frame in which Jesus might have been born and then ordered that all male children born in the area of Bethlehem within the previous two years be killed. Thus, we can conclude that Jesus may have been as much as two years old when the wise men came. An angel warned Joseph about Herods plan and told him to take Mary and the child and flee into Egypt (Matthew 2:13-16). It has often been taught that the valuable presents from the wise men arrived at just the right time to cover the expenses of the flight into Egypt to escape King Herods soldiers. However, there is nothing in the Scripture to suggest that Joseph and Mary used the gifts for that purpose. They both knew that Jesus was a divine child. Is it likely that they would have spent all of His wealth? Its more likely that Jesus still had some of that wealth available to Him when He started His earthly ministry.

[Jesus Had A Place To Live!

In Luke 9:58, Jesus says, the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay His head. From this scripture, many have concluded that Jesus was so poor that He didnt even have a place that He could call home. The proper context is seen in the preceding verses (51-57) where it is stated that Jesus had resolutely set His face to go to Jerusalem; and He sent messengers on ahead of Him. And they went, and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make arrangements for Him. And they did not receive Him, because He was journeying with His face toward Jerusalem......And they went on to another village. And as they were going along the road, someone said to Him, I will follow You wherever You go. It was then that Jesus made the remark about having nowhere to lay His head. He had thought to sleep in the village that would not receive Him and had not yet reached the next village so He did not know what awaited Him there. Matthew 8:20 quotes Jesus as saying essentially the same thing when He was preparing to enter a boat to cross the Sea of Galilee with His disciples at night. Again, He did not know where He would sleep that night. (He slept in the boat). In addition, John 1:35-37 tells us that two of John the Baptists disciples followed Jesus after John identified Him as the Lamb of God. According to John 1:38 , And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and said to them, What do you seek? And they said to him, Rabbi, (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying? He said to them, Come and you will see. They came therefore and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. So, Jesus did have a dwelling place and it was big enough that others could stay with Him. Obviously, when Jesus said He had nowhere to lay His head, He was not commenting on His financial state or lack of a home, but on the itinerant nature of His ministry that allowed Him little opportunity to sleep in His own house or bed

That I thought was more than relevant. For when reading the entirety of the Word, it seems apparent that Christ (outside of him when he was on the Mission Field/traveling) was far from being "homeless". Again, the man had a roof over his head...

For look at Jesus' own life, as He was the oldest of Joseph's children--with the responsibility of making certain his mother was not widowed/left destitute when he passed on since that was the firstborn's job. And the man, apart from having a trade as an artisan, owned a house.

Matthew 13/Matthew 13:1-3 Matthew 13

The Parable of the Sower

1That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore.

As another said best, "If you are on the phone to your friend you say, 'I'm just about to leave the house,' you don't say, 'I'm just about to leave my house,' unless there is some question about whose house you are in....If someone is leaving their own house they say, I'm leaving the house now, I'll see you in a few minutes.

The same thing is noted in Mark 9:14-50, where Jesus is at His house since the beginning of the scene, verses 14-28, occurs outside in the yard, then Jesus goes indoors in verse 28. Then in Capernaum He is living in yet another house, verse 33-50. For people came to His house for teaching and healings. So it's the case that Jesus either owned or rented houses during the course of His travels.

But people should make no mistake that Jesus was AT HOME/Had somewhere to live...for It's already the case that often Jesus would instruct the disciples in the privacy of the home--as seen in Mark 4:33-35 Mark 4 Mark 7:17 , etc). And to be clear, as at one point, there was no more room in the house Christ was in, at the most, perhaps 50 people could come into the house...while the rest had to often listen outside.....

Mark 1:28-30 (in Context) Mark 1

Jesus Heals Many

29As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew.

Mark 2:1
[ Jesus Heals a Paralytic ] A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.
Mark 2:1-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+2&version=NIV

Mark 3:19-21/
Mark 3:20
[ Jesus and Beelzebub ] Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.

Mark 9:29
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." 36He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."

Mark 7:17
After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+7&version=NIV

Mark 10:10
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
Mark 10:9-11 Mark 10

John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
John 20:25-27 John 20

For some other thoughts on the issue, as said best by another:

Mark 3.20: Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that He and His disciples were not even able to eat (TNIV). As with 2.15, the Greek is ambiguous here. There is no definite article before oikon (house), which might suggest that a house is the correct reading. However, and against that, the context seems to allow that this is the home of Jesus. For instance, the fact that His family arrives so quickly might imply this (e.g. as family members, they would have known where He lived). Bruce Malina's argument that the family came to preserve their honor might also help the argument. For example, society would have connected the house of Jesus with dishonor, which in a society where kinship is incredibly meaningful, would have, by virtue of blood relations alone, also brought shame or dishonor on the homes or households of Christ's family members. In short, their homes would have been "marked" with dishonor simply because one of their family member's homes was.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 10, 2010

Easy G (G²);54129418 said:
But people should make no mistake that Jesus was AT HOME/Had somewhere to live...for It's already the case that often Jesus would instruct the disciples in the privacy of the home--as seen in Mark 4:33-35 Mark 4 Mark 7:17 , etc). And to be clear, as at one point, there was no more room in the house Christ was in, at the most, perhaps 50 people could come into the house...while the rest had to often listen outside.....
Mark 1:28-30 (in Context) Mark 1

Jesus Heals Many

29As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew.

Mark 2:1
[ Jesus Heals a Paralytic ] A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home.
Mark 2:1-3 Mark 2
Mark 3:19-21/ Mark 3
Mark 3:20
[ Jesus and Beelzebub ] Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat.

Mark 9:29
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." 36He took a little child and had him stand among them. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me."
Mark 7:17
After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.
Mark 7:16-18 /Mark 7
Mark 10:10
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
Mark 10:9-11 Mark 10
John 20:26
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"
John 20:25-27 John 20

The same kind of dynamics can be seen in the example of the lifestyles of the disciples......for in example, when you look at the occupations and businesses that the disciples had, one can see that they seem successful.
Matthew, as a tax collector, traditionally would have been fairly well off.

Regarding Matthew,

"

Matthew 9:9

[ The Calling of Matthew ] As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

Matthew 10

2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Mark 2

14As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Luke 5:29

27After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him, 28and Levi got up, left everything and followed him. Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them.
Luke 5:28-30

Tax collectors were a trip...with most of them indeed WEALTHY, as it was with Zacchaeus ( Luke 19:1-3 /Luke 19 )..and for those who were tax-collectors, it's something that people often did not want to mix with ...even though Jesus often did went counter to the norms in connecting with them as He often did for those who were outcasts( Matthew 11:19,Matthew 11:18-20, , Matthew 21:31-33/ ,Luke 3:11-13 Luke 3 , Luke 15:1-3 Luke 15, Luke 18:8-10 /Luke 18, )---wWhen Matthew was called, he did not disguise his past or make any excuse for it, which was humility. Tax collectors were among the most hated and despised in society in society since the money they collected was often extorted for personal gain and partly a tax for Rome, which made them not only theives but traitors to the Jewish Nation. Also, regarding the text, one must keep in mind that there are generally 2 categories of tax collectors: 1.) gabbi collected general taxes on land and property, and a income, referred to as poll and registration taxex; 2.) mokhes colleted a wide variety of use taxes, similar to import duties, buisness license fees, and toll fees. Additionally, there were two categories of mokhes: great mokhes hired others to collect taxes for them; small mokhes did their own assessing and collecting. Matthew was a small mokhes ......and it is likely that there was representivitves of both classes attending Matthew's Feast---ALL of whom were considered social outcasts and of bad reputation. There was still stigma against him when he invited Jesus to come/dine in his home and others were still wondering "Why in the world is Christ fellowshipping with this person who is clearly a sinner?".

On the issue, seeing the background of what Matthew himself was able to do, I think it'd be foolish for anyone to think that the disciples themselves were poor when Jesus told them what to do during their travels....especially seeing that they had enough behind them to do some things if they wanted to. Levi as a fairly well-to-do tax collector..and as mentioned before in Mark 1:14-20 , several of Jesus's first disciples were NOT poor..but were self-employed fishermen (with it being the case for James and John that the were part of a family buisness). Logically, to say that those following Christ had NOTHING does not seem to be scripturally accurate. In the cases of Peter/John in the temple in ACTS 2, it would be extremely off to say that when in the temple, they were DIRT poor since their lifestyles did not make it possible for them to be in such positions.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 10, 2010

razzelflabben said:
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how what I said brings you to the conclusion that we are not to provide for those that we are in charge of caring for...I just don't get how you get to that conclusion from what I and scripture says..

The point was that saying the business is in ruins because the disciples left logically means that the ones left behind/profiting from the businses suffer as well. That would not be proper..

.. now the heart of what you are saying here, I agree with, which is what confuses me, where do you come to the conclusion from what I said, that we should never work, or care for those we are charged with caring for?

What I was saying was that the disciples did not leave without ensuring their loved ones still had something to live off of---and with income, they had to have things in order before jumping off with Jesus. To leave knowing the business they used for their families would fall apart would be unwise/inconsiderate of the family

I never suggested they did, I simply pointed out that they left business that they might follow Christ....how do you get from that that I am suggesting that we should not care for our families? I don't understand the jump your making...please, please for the sake of communication if nothing else, you explain the jump you are making here...

If saying the business they left crumbled and they didn't care for that as much as they did for Christ, it's logical to see that the family would have not been able to live off of a crumbled business (unless the miraculous catch of fish they got lasted for a good bit while they were gone/ended up in more profit for them...or the Father of James/John had it covered while boats were rented out to others for some source of income for the loved ones to get).

'

. and yet He still left her...which is all I said about the disciples and their businesses..

Ok...

.

.

it also could mean that they did the work necessary to eat, and provide the basic needs while they studied under Christ....point is this, when our daily needs are met, we have a choice, we can keep working, or we can satisfy ourselves and focus all our attention on the Christ

But all of that has nothing to do with whether or not their business back home was running for their families somehow while they took time to focus on Christ---just as a man feeling he's called to go on a long journey and leaving his job, while also making certain his loved ones have food on the table still while he is gone.

.... oh good, that question is cleared up...they went back to work after years of dedicated following, the way you worded that I thought you were trying to say they only followed Christ for 3 days.....shooooooo.

Cool

or you could do another business, or work just enough to keep basic needs met, etc. in other words, there are lots of ways to take care of basic needs other than to work a business into thriving excess.

No one was discussing thriving excess---as one can run a business and have it where it works for others to survive on.

okay, wait a moment, I'm lost again, because he was a tent maker and then pared down to go into full time ministry, he was exempt from all the promises of wealth because he didn't have a family?

As Paul talked about the promises of wealth in II Corinthians 8-9, that's not the point. He worked a job and some things were not necessary to believe for since his lifestyle did not require it---just as one living with their parents does not need to believe/pray to God for provision in getting a home for 5 since he is not in need of such. God gives us what we need at the time.

yep, and as fishermen, they could go wherever there was fish...as a Dr. anywhere there were sick people (which begs the question why Christ chose Luke, I mean, Jesus is a greater healer than any Dr. right?)

To be clear, Luke was not a disciple. That's a common error many make because they see "The Gospel of Luke"

Also, as fish could only be CAUGHT at certain times and market areas were in certain places, it was not the case that their traveling with Jesus/being able to catch fish meant they could run/set up a business at a thriving hub for fish as they did back home. For if they were following Jesus where he went and he did not go often to those places, then its another story.

Yekcidmij said:
Fishermen, builders (tekton="carpenters"), and tax collectors wouldn't have made more than the typical wage of a day laborer, which would have been just enough money to feed and clothe themselves and their family. Most of Jesus' followers, and Jesus Himself, were not well off financially. The possible exceptions to the rule in Jesus' circle of followers would be the Zebedee brothers (if they really owned the boat they were in), Cuza's wife Joanna (Cuza was Herod's household manager, see Luk 8:3), Joseph of Arimathea (if he was indeed a follower), Nicodemus (if he was a follower), and Lazarus (who had a family tomb and possible connections to the priestly families).

Nazareth where Jesus grew up was a very insignificant spot on the map with probably no more than 400 people living there in Jesus' day. Capernaum, where Jesus seems to have made a hub for himself and found some of his disciples, wasn't much better. Archeology shows that both cities were pretty poor, but not so poor that people couldn't survive.

Would have to disagree on that specific point of all fishermen/builders and tax collectors being on the level of making only typical day laborer wages.....as there was diversity in the fields on the issue/differing levels of income. With the fishing industry, there were levels of being either a CONTRACTOR...or a laborer who caught the fish...or the ones who made the material to catch them with---and, for that matter, those who sold the fish in the market/did the advertising. Concerning the economic issues of Christ's time, one may wish investigating a book entitled Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life By David A. Fiensy

And with the issue of being well-off financially, would have to say that it doesn't seem to be accurate to say that others following Jesus were not well off. Joseph was already noted for being an ACTIVE follower of Christ, for Joseph of Arimathea was rich (Matthew 27:54 ) & a member of the Sanhedrin looking for the kingdom of God (Mark 15:39 ), almost certainly a Pharisee, & one who did not consent to the decision to do away with Jesus (Luke 23:42 ) .......a disciple of Jesus "secretly, for fear of the Jews" (John 19:39 ) and the one making final provisions for the body of Jesus.

Nicodemus was indeed a follower of Christ-----IMHO, an excellent example of what a Pharisee ought to have been, ....AS HE WAS genuinely a seeker of truth (John 3:1/John 3:3 ff.), spoke out for justice on behalf of Jesus ( John 7:42 ) , and remained a follower of Jesus even after the disciples had fallen away (John 19:39 ).

With the women who followed Jesus,

Luke 8/Luke 8:2-4/ Luke 8

The Parable of the Sower

1After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means

The issue is more than clear, IMHO---especially when considering one of the women funding CHrist who was the manager of royalty---and for anyone doing basic research on what was involved for others in the position of managing the household of a king, it was anything but a job without significant benefits...and more evidence on the reality of how Christ/His Church have always had needs taken care of alongside funding---just as it was in the Early CHurch. One similar to what Joanna did was Romans 16:1-3 / ---as well as another who was named Erastus, the City Director of Public WorksRomans 16:22-24 / Romans 16 and many others who were chosen by the Lord to fund the activities of the church....

Jesus Himself, were not well off financially.

Would have to disagree when it comes to saying Jesus was not well-off financially...and personally, it's always amazing when people try to make it out as if Christ did not have a significant job. For He was a carpenter, Mark 6:2-4 Mark 6 --and the son of one as well, Matthew 13:54-56 / Matthew 13

When studying Jewish culture, others forget that the role of the son was to take on the family trade of the Father...and as His father (Joseph) was a Carpenter for many. Carpenters made a good bit of finances...& Christ would've taken that over when Joseph died since he was the oldest/in charge of taking care of his mother---with the Lord leading the family buisness/means of income for SOME time...and there were at least 18yrs for Christ to have made plans/stored up resources for traveling ministry, which he often noted....and of course, though Joseph may have started at one level, perhaps he built up in time.

There's actually a most interesting video on the issue, entitled The Visit of the MAGI - Prophesy in the News......as it discusses how Joseph and Jesus were probably very well off and would have been the equivalent of modern day contractors....and it also tells about the Magi who visited Jesus when he was approximately 15 months old in Bethlehem...and brings up the point of how the gifts brought to Jesus wouldn't have been little "token gifts.", as they were gifts from tremendously wealthy men to a future king. As John Macarther said on the issue:

a. The Identification of the Gifts

1) Gold
Gold was a super valuable commodity, as it is today. It was used for only the best purposes, such as in the construction of the Temple and all of its contents (1 Kgs. 5-7; 2 Chr. 2-5). It was worn as jewelry, and even used to make utensils for the rich.

2) Frankincense
Literally, the Greek says "pure incense." This incense came from a white juice that was extracted from the bark of a certain tree growing in Arabia, its Old Testament equivalent also being derived from the meaning of white. Frankincense was used as a fragrant scent in the meal offerings for the scent that was symbolically rising to God (Lev. 2:1), and as a perfume in wedding processions (S. of S. 3:6).

3) Myrrh
Myrrh came from a little tree that was also located in Arabia, and which gave forth a beautiful perfume. It was used in Proverbs 7:17 to perfume a bed and in Psalm 45:8 to put on clothes. As a prototype of deodorant, myrrh was used by Esther when she was getting all dolled up to come in to the king (Est. 2:12), and also was used in the same bridal procession of Solomon where frankincense was used. Mixed with wine in Mark 15:23, it served as an anesthetic, and in John 19:39-40, it was used in the preparation of Jesus' body for burial.

So, there was precious gold, frankincense, a beautiful- smelling incense, and myrrh, a lovely ointment and perfume. But the significance went way beyond the natural use of each gift:

b. The Interpretation of the Gifts
I personally believe that Joseph and Mary, who were especially poor now that Joseph was temporarily not working in his trade, were able to use these gifts when they were sent by God into the foreign culture of Egypt. Because it would have been difficult for Joseph to establish himself there, I am very confident that the gold, frankincense, and myrrh were the resources they used to support themselves until they finally made their way back to Nazareth.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 10, 2010

Easy G (G²);54129533 said:
Would have to disagree when it comes to saying Jesus was not well-off financially...and personally, it's always amazing when people try to make it out as if Christ did not have a significant job. For He was a carpenter, Mark 6:2-4 Mark 6 --and the son of one as well, Matthew 13:54-56 / Matthew 13

But going even further on the issue, there's also the issue of understanding what it means to be a "carpenter"---as indeed, there's even debate concerning the concept of CHrist being a "carpenter" and what that looks like. With "carpenter", people often forget the Greek word -- tektôn. Of course, though traditionally translated "carpenter" and certainly used to refer to carpenters, carpenter is not as precise as necessary. It actually means "craftsman"..and this word is found in English "architect", which comes from the Greek for "master craftsman" -- 1 Corinthians 3:9-11 1 Corinthians 3 ). For more info, one can go online and look up the article known as "Was jesus a carpinter?" ( //answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006042006609 ). As said best there:

To indicate what SORT of craftsman--what materials he worked in-- one might add the term "wood" or "stone".

In fact, we see that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. In 2 Samuel 5:11 (describing David's hiring of craftsmen from Phoenicia) the Hebrew mentions "carpenters and masons". The Greek translation of this verse TWICE uses the word tekton, in phrases which might be translated 'craftsmen in wood and craftsmen in stone'.

There are, in fact, some early writers in the church who suggested Jesus was, in fact, a stone masonmason, or as both, are made from the likelihood that there was more work for a stone mason than for a carpenter in that time and place, esp. since stone was plentiful and most standing structures were chiefly made of it.

This would also add something to some major pronouncements Jesus made -- "on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18; cf. Matthew 7:24-25); "the stone that the builders rejected...made the chief cornestone" (Mark 12:10, quoting Psalm 118:22, compare 1 Peter 2:4-7), and other language about his "building this temple".

(See also John 2:19-21, where the "temple" he refers to is his own body, And note the accusations made against him that he claimed he would tear down and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem [Mark 14:58; 15:29], a stone edifice [see Mark 13:1-2]. All of this gains in force if Jesus or perhaps that he worked in BOTH (which would explain why the gospel writers don't add "wood" or "stone"). Arguments for him working as a stone was a skilled stonemason.)

Again, it was the case that CHrist was called a tekton---which is a Greek word meaning not merely a carpenter skilled in making cabinets/ furniture ...but rather one who was a designer, construction engineer, or architect. If one was a tekton, they could build a house, construct a bridge, or design a temple.....and that was something that often was involved/needed in the buisness world.

To me, that's interesting--as in the Greek, carpenter can mean a woodworker..and yet, it can also mean STONE worker or Mason---which would be hilarious since in the New Testament Jesus is refered to as the CHIEF Cornerstone. In Bible times, carpenters were employed in building houses, constructing furniture, and making farm implements---and of course, for Biblical Reference, one can go to Exodus 31:2-4 Exodus 31, Exodus 35:30-32 / Exodus 35 /Exodus 36:7-9 / Exodus 36 1 Kings 7:13-15 /1 Kings 7/2 Chronicles 2:6-8 / 2 Chronicles 2 / 2 Kings 22:5-7 / 2 Kings 22 /2 Kings 12:11-13 / 2 Kings 12 1 Chronicles 22:14-16 1 Chronicles 29:4-6 /1 Chronicles 29 Ezra 3:6-8 . And though laborers, they were able to provide for themselves/have good sustainable income. From what I was able to study on the historical/cultural context of Jesus's times, the economy of first century Israel was supported by three key segments: agriculture of olives, figs, grains, dates, and vineyards; trade fostered by Israels key location on the Mediterranean Sea; and large government building projects sponsored by King Herod.

King Herod employed many laborers by commissioning many public works (e.g. building temple in Jerusalem, palaces, ports, fortresses, stadiums, ornate stone carvings, etc.)

There was a very large disparity between rich and poor.

The upper class was made up of the temple priests and priestly aristocracy (including the Sadducees a Jewish sect)

The middle class was comprised of traders and merchants, artisans (stonecutters, masons, sculptors) and craftsman (metal, wood, cloth dye). The Pharisees (another Jewish sect), sages, scribes, and teachers were also a part of the middle class.

The lower class was made of laborers (weavers, stone carriers, slaves (non-Jewish person taken into slavery because of debt), and the unemployable (lepers, blind, insane, crippled, etc.)

Seeing what the definition of "craftsmen"/"carpenter" in Greek terms allows, it could have easily been the case that Joseph was more than a man in the woodworking arena. It could be that that Joseph beyond a mere carpenter and perhaps a craftsman of the highest degree....especially seeing how when reading the text, he was well known in a town of thousands as being not just a carpenter but the carpenter---as in the best of the best around. Additionally, as it relates to historical evidence, it has been suggessted that Joseph built or repaired boats by the Sea of Galilee, or plows and yokes for farmers since many feel that Nazareth was probably too small to support any sort of fulltime tekton, consequently leading to Jesus and/or Joseph having to possibly travel to Sepphoris to find work or sell their crafts. Also, there are many who have worked at the carpenter trade for a good while....and have seen many different income levels among carpenters. Some goes on to own their own company and are very successful, and others are content to just work for others at an hourly wage. To even suggest that carpenters in Jesus' day were wealthy is a stretch, though to say that many could not have made themselves well-off may be just as much of an issue.

But with that in mind, it'd make more than enough sense as to why Christ was often invited to the parties of Prominent Pharisees (Luke 14:1-3 /Luke 14 /Luke 7:35-37 / Luke 7 )-----not just because of his ministry...but also because of the quality of work He was known for when it came to making works of art for others. Perhaps He even built a good number of things for the Pharisees themselves and he was akin to having the role of one who was a Design Artist invited to share his insight on things. One must bear in mind the reality of how Christ was often considered to be without credentials when He spoke on spiritual issues, John 7:14-16 / John 7 -----as the Pharisess were always astonished at him. It'd be like one who's a Social Worker or a Construction Worker coming into a Pastors Conference and teaching as if he came straight out of Seminary...and others feeling that one needed Seminary to be qualifed to know scripture were amazed. __________________ __________________

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

probinson said:
My question is, what the heck difference does any of this make?

I agree...as at the end of the day, the main issue may be avoided/overlooked that what matters, regardless of financial status, is that those who are destitute be aided....especially seeing how passionate Jesus was for meeting the needs of the poor/destitute ( Luke 7:21-23/ Luke 7/Matthew 11:4-6/ )---as Scripture commands anyway

On the realities of those who are poor, some scriptures to consider:

Proverbs 14:20

The poor are shunned even by their neighbors, but the rich have many friends

Proverbs 19:4

Wealth brings many friends, but a poor man's friend deserts him.

Proverbs 19:7

A poor man is shunned by all his relatives how much more do his friends avoid him! Though he pursues them with pleading, they are nowhere to be found.

Amazing to see what the Word of God describes when it comes to some of the general principles that occur with Poverty....

On the same token, by no means is it the case that those who're Poor cannot have POWERFUL ministries/benefits ( 2 Corinthians 6:9-11 / 2 Corinthians 6 )--and by no means is it ever the case that those who're poor are to be discriminated against as if the Lord can never operate through such (Exodus 23:2-4, Deuteronomy 15:6-8/ Deuteronomy 15 , Deuteronomy 24:11-13 Deuteronomy 24:13-15 Deuteronomy 24 ,Proverbs 13:23 ,Proverbs 19:1 ,Proverbs 19:22 Proverbs 21:13 ,Proverbs 22:9 ,Proverbs 28:6 ,Proverbs 28:11 ,Proverbs 28:27 , Ecclesiastes 9:14-16 /Ecclesiastes 9:15-17 / Ecclesiastes 9 , Amos 5:10-12 /Amos 5:11-13 Amos 5 , Acts 10:4-6 2 Corinthians 9:10-12 / 2 Corinthians 9 , 2 Corinthians 8:7 , Philippians 4:17-19/, James 2:1-3 /, ). The way that Jesus operated was so counter-cultural when it came to being concerned for those who were poor...as noted:

Luke 14

Jesus at a Pharisee's House

1One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. 2There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. 3Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?" 4But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. 5Then he asked them, "If one of you has a son[] or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?" 6And they had nothing to say.

7When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8"When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, 'Give this man your seat.' Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. 11For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

12Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

James 1:8-10/ James 1
The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. 10But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. 11For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business. 12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him

James 2:5

Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?
James 2:4-6 / James 2

1 John 3:17

If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
1 John 3

Never in scripture does it ever seem to be the case that Jesus---though having much to provide for Himself--ever sought Riches for its own sake....or walked around as if He was on "Esquire" magazine...

Luke 16:10-12/ Luke 16
For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. 9I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

10"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

lismore said:
There were rich believers in the bible and there were poor ones.

What is most important is not rich or poor, but serving the Lord from your heart.

Amen

For me, the issue is never about being either RICH or being POOR (

Though to be clear, if Jesus were in 2009, He'd know exactly how to relate to those who were poor...and how to encourage them where they're at when going through hard times. For those who have ever been impoverished, it's a reality that many times coming out of poverty takes an extensive amount of times in certain seasons. And sad to say, it's the case that many times people make it out to be as if Jesus would never have times where He wasn't wandering out alone like one who was homeless...though it could have been more than possible if seeking to do ministry---just as it is with others who are pretty well-off...and yet they choose to live life on the streets at times to see what it's like, actually being in the trenches, so to speak, with those who are hurting so that they can go back to their churches/report on the realities of what Poverty is truly like and how to truly aid people ................for too often stereotypes occur on the issue that are very grieving.

Amazing to see how often people forget that anyone could become homeless instantly...from a teacher graduated from college but not having enough money/income to pay the bills..to a mother/doctor kicked out of the house by a husband promoting domestic violence (and her having to flee for her life) and a MYRIAD of other scenarios.

Don't know if you know of it, but I'm reminded of a book I had to study in college for "Culture & Poverty" class in Human Services entitled Experiencing Poverty: Voices from the Bottom

Experiencing Poverty: Voices from the Bottom, 1st Edition

D. Stanley Eitzen - Colorado State University
Kelly Eitzen Smith - University of Arizona

Endorsed by CNN Today Videos for Sociology, it was Probably one of the informative reads I've ever had the chance to study----from numerous testimonies/statitistics, as the readings incorporated the experiences of the impoverished in many situations, including people who are homeless, housed, working, non-working, single, married, urban, rural, born in the United States, first generation Americans, young and old.----and most significantly, the crucial dimensions of inequality - race and gender - interwoven throughout the selected readings with the facts based on STATISTICS.

Something we learned from the book was the issue of stigmas. As learned in class, stigmas are an attribute socially devalued and disgraced, and until completing this course, I never realized the extent of damage that can be done when groups are singled out in society as abnormal or inferior. One area particularly compelling to me in the readings was the issue of trailer parks and the stereotypes associated with the term trailer trash. There's a biographical story about a man by the name of Allan Berube, who grew up as a part of a white, working class family in the Sunset Trailer Park in Bayonne, New Jersey. In the year 1946 there was a postwar trailer coach industry which actively promoted house trailers in magazine ads and portrayed them as economical and efficient alongside accommodating the need for small-family homes. The industry specifically targeted those who were returning veterans, newlyweds, and all others who were not ready for permanent housing.

Consequently, Berube and his family moved into a trailer park town alongside many others.

What was intriguing to me was seeing how many of the families moving into the trailer parks did so originally believing they were only passing through and would eventually make it into the suburban areas initially far beyond their reach. As Berube made clear, his father chose to tolerate the cheapness of trailer park life only as a stepping stone for making it possible for his children to succeed and for him to eventually own his own house. Of course, due to issues of inadequate income, the family remained in the trailer park longer than usual and Berube was forced against his will to live life as a trailer kid. Reading that struck me because it served to remind me of the history many may miss regarding those whore descendants of those involved in trailer parks today.

Often, many may believe that those involved in the trailer parks were there by reckless choice and had nothing better to do than to get involved in extramarital sex, drink heavily, use drugs, and be perpetrators of domestic violence. While these behaviors do occur in trailer parks, the reality is that those who are in poverty differ widely in personal characteristics and circumstances. Many of them were decent families starting out with the best of intentions, and circumstances prevented them from advancing. Failure to realize this can lead to wrongly assuming the background and capabilities of an individual, consequently hindering ones ability to either understand them or be able to aid them properly. Its similar to what we learned in class regarding the concept of sociological imagination, which deals with the issue of how one must realize that individual troubles are inextricably linked to social forces. Only by examining life circumstances can we see their connection to the structure of society and that many people truly are the products of our environment.

What was even more intriguing to witness was Berubes description of how he had to deal with many of the conflicting stereotypes of trailer park life in the 1950s. It's is one thing to be labeled/ stereotyped for being on one particular side of the tracks but even more amazing when people begin to create further tracks in the neighborhood streets by stereotyping one another when they are practically the same. The scenario seems akin to the failure an army experiences when dealing with an external enemy because of things such as power struggles, backbiting, division, factions, and general chaos in the camp. This is evident in how Allan described the trailer parks as a crossroads where the paths of poor, working-class and lower-class white immigrants intersected temporarily---and yet there were still class tensions.

It was amazing seeing how those who were of the white working class and owning houses tried to raise their own class within the white community by showing their superiority to those whites who were residents of trailer park, while those in the trailer parks would try to present themselves as respectable by distancing themselves from others who were considered worse than they were. Those considered worse were those who were minorities, immigrants, those with large families or those with comparatively fewer resources. Even more intriguing was witnessing the standards used to measure ones rank such as trailer size and model, lot size and location, maintenance of ones yard, income, etc. Comparisons such as these were made in order to lessen the reality which such people already lived.

Some of these standards seem artificial and illogical when the reality is that all those ranking one another are of the same socioeconomic class; however, seeing this made me realize how the stigmas resulting from poverty can influence individuals to begin discriminating against others who are like themselves when theyve been wrongly discriminated against.

But many of those things could never be learned had one not chosen to live among those in the situations..

IMHO, even in the secular world, it's a trip seeing those in the field of Anthropology who chose to live for a 5 month period living under the bridges (or in a car) to aid those suffering. And in doing ministry to homeless individuals, sometimes it was the case that it was very much unplanned---due to simply taking a long walk/dressed fairly casual/happening to run into someone who was going through....then choosing to treat them as humans/just listen to them. Could have been the case with Jesus, IMHO, especially seeing how often he traveled alone to desolate places...sometimes running into folks (Mark 1:34-36/ /Mark 1:44-45 Luke 4:41-43 / / Luke 5:15-17 /). The encounter with the Samaritan Woman is one of the best examples of such, as to her he may have seemed as a bit of a wanderer (John 4 )---and going places that were often "forbidden" as with Samaritan territory ( Luke 9:51-53 / ). When one considers the racial issues with Samaritans and Jews and how they often sought to avoid one another ( ), it gets even crazier to consider how radical Christ was....

..........some places where folks in the church would NEVER go, such as the Projects/Ghettos or anywhere concerning an Urban Context---even though they talk about the "Good News" being for everywhere. And yet they wonder why some will never come to their side of the street...but I'd say ultimately the answer for reaching people like this is for Christians to move back into the cities, to live in poorer neighborhoods, to intentionally live in trailer parks and that sort of thing. That is the idea of being 'missional.', where you live in the culture and earn the right to speak to the culture. Jesus would have been no stranger to the concept-.............

But Expanding upon what was noted on being missional (as was Christ in the places He went to),

If wondering why the railroad pics are in there, it's part of an analogy we learned in class a good while ago. Have you ever considered, should you live in a part of town dividing it from another differing part of town by means of the railroad, how both sides will have bad images of one another?

The kats who live on the rich side of the tracks and where things are good will often tell their children "Stay on this side of the street and don't go on further---they're dangerous (i.e. the people living on the other side, due to things such as high crime rates, drug dealers/prostitution, fatherless homes, poverty/run down neighborhoods, and also a myriad of stereotypes.......)

But on the flip side, when you go to the run down part of the tracks, what do you hear?

"You must've come from the wrong side of the tracks......."

"Stay on this side of the street--they're dangerous....(due to things such as racial profiling, racisim, people starring/labeling, harrassment, and any other issues one can think of that are common plagues of middle-class/rich communities).

Interesting that both sides distrust the other and often for wrong reasons. I've seen it where people in middle class communities have taken time off to do street ministry because they wish to make a difference and don't want to be part of the stereotypical "rich people"/have and have-nots" mentality. They take the time to learn the language/customs of the culture and try to respect them as Paul did when He was with either Jew or Gentile. Some have even donated entire houses to be used as shelters for those who were poor/abused and can be considered philanthropists. They realize that even the churches in Acts had RICH members who weren't excluded from doing their part in adding the congregation (I Timothy 6, James 1:9-11). ......& yet many people on the streets will often try to harm/harass them as if they caused their situation.....or say that because they're not in their shoes, they don't have any right to try and help.

My question, however, was what to make of Jesus---who didn't fit ANYONE'S PROFILE? He wasn't dirt poor nor filthy rich, but he was able to reach out to people of both groups since BOTH NEEDED SALVATION ( Psalm 49:11 /Ecclesiastes 9:2 ). Both have things which are beneficial/awesome to see......& both have dark sides that neither wish to acknowledge.

Proverbs 22:2

Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all.

Jesus didn't discriminate which group he went to in order to reach for the sake of the Gospel (like the rich young ruler, Zacheus the Tax Collector and Matthew the Tax Collector too.....and the Pharisee who invited Jesus to come to His house, Luke 7:36-50...........and as the man was BORN into impoverished conditions rather than in REGAL MANNER ( /Matthew 1:11 ), he knew what life was like from the bottom. ___________

And likewise, as the church and both RICH and POOR in it---all called to aid one another---the real issue is how do saints come together as a BODY to the GLORY of God

razzelflabben · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54129418 said:
Wanted to say earlier that on the issue of what you're saying, what it seems many may forget is that the work PETER/John and the apostles did was one involving a TRAVELING ministry/missionary endeavor. And when on the Mission FIELD, its a necessity for others to be housed/taken care of. And on the text, it may be hard to imagine at times (due to our usage of cars to traverse great distances in short amounts of time) that back in the day, they had to WALK everywhere they went...with it often taking WEEKS/Months to get to places...and would be very tired. So of course, for them, having to be provided for/taken care of was a BIG deal. The same is discussed in I Corinthians 9 when Paul discusses providing for those traveling

To say that they were "homeless" and without anything may not be proper reading of the text....and on the issue, seeing how often it was discussed in the Word that the disciples themselves HAD homes to go to if they chose to do so (and, for that matter, the SILVER and GOLD needed to keep them), it seems odd that people make it out that when they were on the Mission Field their status there was how it always was. On the issue, it would be odd to see Jesus asking his disciples to be "homeless" since not even he was in that position.

most of this I will not comment on because I don't hold to either side of that part of the argument, however, I do want to offer when possible a balance to the two extremes, extremes I personally find troubling and contrary to my own beliefs, iow's I'm somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, and am comfortable there....that being said, I find it strange that 13 men, that is the 12 disciples and Jesus, could have all their money held in a community fund, and still have more than enough money held back to live on once they left Jesus side...I mean, think Annanias and Saphira...now that is not to say they didn't have homes to go back to, I mean, even our son, who is in the military, essentually not living here for a couple of years now, has a home to come back to...in fact, he is here now, and preparing to leave again, and when he gets back from his next deployment, he will still have a home to come back to....point being two fold, 1. it seems unreasonable to assume that these men would have kept riches hidden away back home when they lived by community rules, and 2. having a home back home doesn't always mean owning it yourself...thus, on two instances, it would seem that it requires reading into the text in order to come to the conclusion you are presenting.

As seen best in the article entitled "Jesus Was Not Poor" ( )
Jesus Was Not Poor

Jesus birth in a stable has led many to believe that Joseph and Mary were poor people and this has been used to make Christians believe that there is something spiritual and, therefore, desirable about being poor. However, the Bible in Luke 2:7 clearly tells us that Jesus was born in a stable only because there was no room in the inn. Joseph was a carpenter, a fairly rewarding occupation in Biblical times. He had money to pay for a room at the inn if one was available. He owned a donkey that Mary rode. Poor women made the journey for the census on foot. Matthew 2:11 says the three wise men, And they came into the house, and saw the Child with Mary his mother; and they fell down, and worshiped Him: and opening their treasures they presented to him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh. So Joseph and Mary apparently had enough money to rent a house where they had been living with their young son from His birth until He was almost two years old. King Herod had ascertained from the wise men the time frame in which Jesus might have been born and then ordered that all male children born in the area of Bethlehem within the previous two years be killed. Thus, we can conclude that Jesus may have been as much as two years old when the wise men came. An angel warned Joseph about Herods plan and told him to take Mary and the child and flee into Egypt (Matthew 2:13-16). It has often been taught that the valuable presents from the wise men arrived at just the right time to cover the expenses of the flight into Egypt to escape King Herods soldiers. However, there is nothing in the Scripture to suggest that Joseph and Mary used the gifts for that purpose. They both knew that Jesus was a divine child. Is it likely that they would have spent all of His wealth? Its more likely that Jesus still had some of that wealth available to Him when He started His earthly ministry.

[Jesus Had A Place To Live!

In Luke 9:58, Jesus says, the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man has nowhere to lay His head. From this scripture, many have concluded that Jesus was so poor that He didnt even have a place that He could call home. The proper context is seen in the preceding verses (51-57) where it is stated that Jesus had resolutely set His face to go to Jerusalem; and He sent messengers on ahead of Him. And they went, and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make arrangements for Him. And they did not receive Him, because He was journeying with His face toward Jerusalem......And they went on to another village. And as they were going along the road, someone said to Him, I will follow You wherever You go. It was then that Jesus made the remark about having nowhere to lay His head. He had thought to sleep in the village that would not receive Him and had not yet reached the next village so He did not know what awaited Him there. Matthew 8:20 quotes Jesus as saying essentially the same thing when He was preparing to enter a boat to cross the Sea of Galilee with His disciples at night. Again, He did not know where He would sleep that night. (He slept in the boat). In addition, John 1:35-37 tells us that two of John the Baptists disciples followed Jesus after John identified Him as the Lamb of God. According to John 1:38 , And Jesus turned, and beheld them following, and said to them, What do you seek? And they said to him, Rabbi, (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying? He said to them, Come and you will see. They came therefore and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. So, Jesus did have a dwelling place and it was big enough that others could stay with Him. Obviously, when Jesus said He had nowhere to lay His head, He was not commenting on His financial state or lack of a home, but on the itinerant nature of His ministry that allowed Him little opportunity to sleep in His own house or bed

I find this a disturbing argument from the standpoint of who Christ is...a Christ who knows the hearts of man, a Christ who is God in human form, doesn't know what awaits Him in the next town? How is that possible? I don't know, maybe the argument has some merit, but to claim that Jesus didn't know what was awaiting Him seems like a very far fetched way of justifying a belief, at least to me, someone who believes without doubt that Jesus was both God and man....as to the second story here, again, I find it disturbing from the standpoint of trying to use this to justify one's prosperity theology, that Jesus was asked where He was staying, as if the disciples didn't know where He was staying...if the dwelling was His by possession, why didn't the disciples know where it was? Seems plausible that they would have know, I mean, even if we move, our friends and family, especially the close ones, will know before we move where the house is, so if this is referring to Jesus' possession of shelter, why didn't the disciples know where it was?

That I thought was more than relevant. For when reading the entirety of the Word, it seems apparent that Christ (outside of him when he was on the Mission Field/traveling) was far from being "homeless". Again, the man had a roof over his head...

For look at Jesus' own life, as He was the oldest of Joseph's children--with the responsibility of making certain his mother was not widowed/left destitute when he passed on since that was the firstborn's job. And the man, apart from having a trade as an artisan, owned a house.
Matthew 13/Matthew 13:1-3 Matthew 13

The Parable of the Sower

1That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore.

As another said best, "If you are on the phone to your friend you say, 'I'm just about to leave the house,' you don't say, 'I'm just about to leave my house,' unless there is some question about whose house you are in....If someone is leaving their own house they say, I'm leaving the house now, I'll see you in a few minutes.

again, I don't find this a compelling argument simply because of translation and cultural differences....

The same thing is noted in Mark 9:14-50, where Jesus is at His house since the beginning of the scene, verses 14-28, occurs outside in the yard, then Jesus goes indoors in verse 28. Then in Capernaum He is living in yet another house, verse 33-50. For people came to His house for teaching and healings. So it's the case that Jesus either owned or rented houses during the course of His travels.

or had close friends and family that welcomed Him as their own flesh and blood....any of those three would work, but it is important to not leave out the options we don't like....

But people should make no mistake that Jesus was AT HOME/Had somewhere to live...for It's already the case that often Jesus would instruct the disciples in the privacy of the home--as seen in Mark 4:33-35 Mark 4 Mark 7:17 , etc). And to be clear, as at one point, there was no more room in the house Christ was in, at the most, perhaps 50 people could come into the house...while the rest had to often listen outside.....

this could refer to home as in general location, I have a Haitian friend, when he goes home, he refers to going back to Haiti, not his apartment in Brooklyn....it could also refer to close friends, like some of ours, who we are always at home with when we visit, even to going into the house and making ourselves comfortable when they are not there....point being we can't read toooo much into what is written that we base an entire theology on what we want it to say....not accusing anyone here, just offering a balance to the extremes....

razzelflabben · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54129427 said:
The same kind of dynamics can be seen in the example of the lifestyles of the disciples......for in example, when you look at the occupations and businesses that the disciples had, one can see that they seem successful.
Matthew, as a tax collector, traditionally would have been fairly well off.

Regarding Matthew,

"
Matthew 9:9

[ The Calling of Matthew ] As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
Matthew 10

2These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Mark 2

14As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

15While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Luke 5:29

27After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him, 28and Levi got up, left everything and followed him. Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them.
Luke 5:28-30

Tax collectors were a trip...with most of them indeed WEALTHY, as it was with Zacchaeus ( Luke 19:1-3 /Luke 19 )..and for those who were tax-collectors, it's something that people often did not want to mix with ...even though Jesus often did went counter to the norms in connecting with them as He often did for those who were outcasts( Matthew 11:19,Matthew 11:18-20, , Matthew 21:31-33/ ,Luke 3:11-13 Luke 3 , Luke 15:1-3 Luke 15, Luke 18:8-10 /Luke 18, )---wWhen Matthew was called, he did not disguise his past or make any excuse for it, which was humility. Tax collectors were among the most hated and despised in society in society since the money they collected was often extorted for personal gain and partly a tax for Rome, which made them not only theives but traitors to the Jewish Nation. Also, regarding the text, one must keep in mind that there are generally 2 categories of tax collectors: 1.) gabbi collected general taxes on land and property, and a income, referred to as poll and registration taxex; 2.) mokhes colleted a wide variety of use taxes, similar to import duties, buisness license fees, and toll fees. Additionally, there were two categories of mokhes: great mokhes hired others to collect taxes for them; small mokhes did their own assessing and collecting. Matthew was a small mokhes ......and it is likely that there was representivitves of both classes attending Matthew's Feast---ALL of whom were considered social outcasts and of bad reputation. There was still stigma against him when he invited Jesus to come/dine in his home and others were still wondering "Why in the world is Christ fellowshipping with this person who is clearly a sinner?".

On the issue, seeing the background of what Matthew himself was able to do, I think it'd be foolish for anyone to think that the disciples themselves were poor when Jesus told them what to do during their travels....especially seeing that they had enough behind them to do some things if they wanted to. Levi as a fairly well-to-do tax collector..and as mentioned before in Mark 1:14-20 , several of Jesus's first disciples were NOT poor..but were self-employed fishermen (with it being the case for James and John that the were part of a family buisness). Logically, to say that those following Christ had NOTHING does not seem to be scripturally accurate. In the cases of Peter/John in the temple in ACTS 2, it would be extremely off to say that when in the temple, they were DIRT poor since their lifestyles did not make it possible for them to be in such positions.

reading this makes me wonder why even in the conclusion there can not be some middle ground, I mean, why is it necessary for Jesus and the disciples to be either wealthy or "dirt poor" why not, just poor? why not just well off? why not needs met? Why only the extremes?

razzelflabben · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54129533 said:
Would have to disagree on that specific point of all fishermen/builders and tax collectors being on the level of making only typical day laborer wages.....as there was diversity in the fields on the issue/differing levels of income. With the fishing industry, there were levels of being either a CONTRACTOR...or a laborer who caught the fish...or the ones who made the material to catch them with---and, for that matter, those who sold the fish in the market/did the advertising. Concerning the economic issues of Christ's time, one may wish investigating a book entitled Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life By David A. Fiensy

And with the issue of being well-off financially, would have to say that it doesn't seem to be accurate to say that others following Jesus were not well off. Joseph was already noted for being an ACTIVE follower of Christ, for Joseph of Arimathea was rich (Matthew 27:54 ) & a member of the Sanhedrin looking for the kingdom of God (Mark 15:39 ), almost certainly a Pharisee, & one who did not consent to the decision to do away with Jesus (Luke 23:42 ) .......a disciple of Jesus "secretly, for fear of the Jews" (John 19:39 ) and the one making final provisions for the body of Jesus.

Nicodemus was indeed a follower of Christ-----IMHO, an excellent example of what a Pharisee ought to have been, ....AS HE WAS genuinely a seeker of truth (John 3:1/John 3:3 ff.), spoke out for justice on behalf of Jesus ( John 7:42 ) , and remained a follower of Jesus even after the disciples had fallen away (John 19:39 ).

With the women who followed Jesus,
Luke 8/Luke 8:2-4/ Luke 8

The Parable of the Sower

1After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means

The issue is more than clear, IMHO---especially when considering one of the women funding CHrist who was the manager of royalty---and for anyone doing basic research on what was involved for others in the position of managing the household of a king, it was anything but a job without significant benefits...and more evidence on the reality of how Christ/His Church have always had needs taken care of alongside funding---just as it was in the Early CHurch. One similar to what Joanna did was Romans 16:1-3 / ---as well as another who was named Erastus, the City Director of Public WorksRomans 16:22-24 / Romans 16 and many others who were chosen by the Lord to fund the activities of the church....
Would have to disagree when it comes to saying Jesus was not well-off financially...and personally, it's always amazing when people try to make it out as if Christ did not have a significant job. For He was a carpenter, Mark 6:2-4 Mark 6 --and the son of one as well, Matthew 13:54-56 / Matthew 13

When studying Jewish culture, others forget that the role of the son was to take on the family trade of the Father...and as His father (Joseph) was a Carpenter for many.

be careful, Jesus said His father was God not Joseph, which means He would be in the business of loving people, not making furniture, at least on the merit of the premise here.

Carpenters made a good bit of finances...& Christ would've taken that over when Joseph died since he was the oldest/in charge of taking care of his mother---with the Lord leading the family buisness/means of income for SOME time...and there were at least 18yrs for Christ to have made plans/stored up resources for traveling ministry, which he often noted....and of course, though Joseph may have started at one level, perhaps he built up in time.

There's actually a most interesting video on the issue, entitled The Visit of the MAGI - Prophesy in the News......as it discusses how Joseph and Jesus were probably very well off and would have been the equivalent of modern day contractors....and it also tells about the Magi who visited Jesus when he was approximately 15 months old in Bethlehem...and brings up the point of how the gifts brought to Jesus wouldn't have been little "token gifts.", as they were gifts from tremendously wealthy men to a future king. As John Macarther said on the issue:
a. The Identification of the Gifts

1) Gold
Gold was a super valuable commodity, as it is today. It was used for only the best purposes, such as in the construction of the Temple and all of its contents (1 Kgs. 5-7; 2 Chr. 2-5). It was worn as jewelry, and even used to make utensils for the rich.

2) Frankincense
Literally, the Greek says "pure incense." This incense came from a white juice that was extracted from the bark of a certain tree growing in Arabia, its Old Testament equivalent also being derived from the meaning of white. Frankincense was used as a fragrant scent in the meal offerings for the scent that was symbolically rising to God (Lev. 2:1), and as a perfume in wedding processions (S. of S. 3:6).

3) Myrrh
Myrrh came from a little tree that was also located in Arabia, and which gave forth a beautiful perfume. It was used in Proverbs 7:17 to perfume a bed and in Psalm 45:8 to put on clothes. As a prototype of deodorant, myrrh was used by Esther when she was getting all dolled up to come in to the king (Est. 2:12), and also was used in the same bridal procession of Solomon where frankincense was used. Mixed with wine in Mark 15:23, it served as an anesthetic, and in John 19:39-40, it was used in the preparation of Jesus' body for burial.

So, there was precious gold, frankincense, a beautiful- smelling incense, and myrrh, a lovely ointment and perfume. But the significance went way beyond the natural use of each gift:

b. The Interpretation of the Gifts
I personally believe that Joseph and Mary, who were especially poor now that Joseph was temporarily not working in his trade, were able to use these gifts when they were sent by God into the foreign culture of Egypt. Because it would have been difficult for Joseph to establish himself there, I am very confident that the gold, frankincense, and myrrh were the resources they used to support themselves until they finally made their way back to Nazareth.

wow, this argument takes the cake...I said that we should not forget that the disciples left their businesses to follow Jesus and I was told by you that that didn't mean their businesses were failing, but here, you quote "who were especially poor now that Joseph was temporarily not working in his trade" how is it that Mary and Joseph would have been poor because they were temporarily "laid off" but Jesus and the disciples would not have been equally poor when they were "laid off"? I simply don't see the consistency in this, please help me out here...why would Mary and Joseph be poor without consistent work in their profession but Jesus and the disciples wouldn't have been? What makes the difference?

razzelflabben · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54129638 said:
But many of those things could never be learned had one not chosen to live among those in the situations..

have you ever done this, lived the life of the poor...in this country especially, the poor are shoved aside, we try to make poverty in this country invisible...which only adds to the things you typed above....it sounds like you had an exciting class btw, and learned much...

IMHO, even in the secular world, it's a trip seeing those in the field of Anthropology who chose to live for a 5 month period living under the bridges (or in a car) to aid those suffering. And in doing ministry to homeless individuals, sometimes it was the case that it was very much unplanned---due to simply taking a long walk/dressed fairly casual/happening to run into someone who was going through....then choosing to treat them as humans/just listen to them. Could have been the case with Jesus, IMHO, especially seeing how often he traveled alone to desolate places...sometimes running into folks (Mark 1:34-36/ /Mark 1:44-45 Luke 4:41-43 / / Luke 5:15-17 /). The encounter with the Samaritan Woman is one of the best examples of such, as to her he may have seemed as a bit of a wanderer (John 4 )---and going places that were often "forbidden" as with Samaritan territory ( Luke 9:51-53 / ). When one considers the racial issues with Samaritans and Jews and how they often sought to avoid one another ( ), it gets even crazier to consider how radical Christ was....

what if Christ, as you point out, did things that to us were crazy, did have money, let's say for the sake of argument He made what to us would be 100,000 or more a year, wouldn't it be totally probable that He gave it all to the poor, including but not limited to the money He needed for a house? I mean, isn't that consistent with the image we are given of real love, Christ's love?

..........some places where folks in the church would NEVER go, such as the Projects/Ghettos or anywhere concerning an Urban Context---even though they talk about the "Good News" being for everywhere. And yet they wonder why some will never come to their side of the street...but I'd say ultimately the answer for reaching people like this is for Christians to move back into the cities, to live in poorer neighborhoods, to intentionally live in trailer parks and that sort of thing. That is the idea of being 'missional.', where you live in the culture and earn the right to speak to the culture. Jesus would have been no stranger to the concept-.............

Okay, I'm gonna say something here that is sure to get me into trouble, but I'm gonna say it anyway....and no, I am not referring to anyone in particular, just in general....way too many people, in the church as well as out, would never dream of living with the poor because in doing so,they would not feel superior, or they would have consciences that would force them to give their excess and thus could not call themselves rich any longer....standing back and looking in, puts a buffer around us that we can deny. Giving a dollar here and a dollar there eases our consciences, and we get to keep all our wealth without the guilt feelings...

My question, however, was what to make of Jesus---who didn't fit ANYONE'S PROFILE? He wasn't dirt poor nor filthy rich, but he was able to reach out to people of both groups since BOTH NEEDED SALVATION ( Psalm 49:11 /Ecclesiastes 9:2 ). Both have things which are beneficial/awesome to see......& both have dark sides that neither wish to acknowledge.

amen, pretty much what I have been trying to say....

And likewise, as the church and both RICH and POOR in it---all called to aid one another---the real issue is how do saints come together as a BODY to the GLORY of God

bravo!

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

razzelflabben said:
razzelflabben said:

most of this I will not comment on because I don't hold to either side of that part of the argument, however, I do want to offer when possible a balance to the two extremes, extremes I personally find troubling and contrary to my own beliefs, iow's I'm somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, and am comfortable there....that being said, I find it strange that 13 men, that is the 12 disciples and Jesus, could have all their money held in a community fund, and still have more than enough money held back to live on once they left Jesus side...

Click to expand...

Curious as to whether or not you've studied any of the cultural dynamics of the day in Jewish culture when it comes to family dynamics/finances. If willing, I'll go back and complile a list of sources on the issue one can look up---as studying with others within Messianic Judaism and meeting with the Jewish Rabbi I meet with weekly as well as many other teachers on the issue, it has always been a trip seeing how often people will discuss what it is that do and do not see as reasonable and yet no one will actually deal with the cultural dynamics of the time. But on the issue, as Jesus and the disciples were JEWISH, it was a big deal for families to ensure that they had resources/inheritance stocked up for the families---and when traveling, as others supported them full them on the road--there were other sources of income as well.

I mean, think Annanias and Saphira...now that is not to say they didn't have homes to go back to, I mean, even our son, who is in the military, essentually not living here for a couple of years now, has a home to come back to...in fact, he is here now, and preparing to leave again, and when he gets back from his next deployment, he will still have a home to come back to....point being two fold, 1. it seems unreasonable to assume that these men would have kept riches hidden away back home when they lived by community rules, and 2. having a home back home doesn't always mean owning it yourself...
...thus, on two instances, it would seem that it requires reading into the text in order to come to the conclusion you are presenting.

Click to expand...

I think, however, what you're doing is still trying to take the situation as you've experienced and reading that back into the text as to how they would have done. For in that time, do you understand the dynamics of what was required of Jewish Men/believers in the Torah to do for their own families...and how COMMUNITY based the Jewish culture was? Whether or not one owned a home, by the way, doesn't relate to the fact that one necessarily is "HOMELESS"...As there are plenty of people who live with their parents/have provision given to them while they also do jobs to aid in their families (such as paying "rent" for room/board..or, if getting that for free, doing chores around the house/aiding the parents in what they ask while they as young adults are free to go to school). But they still have a permanent place of residence.

But with

Mark 1:29-34
As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her. 31So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them. 32That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. 33The whole town gathered at the door, 34and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Luke 4:33

Jesus Heals Many

38Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon. Now Simon's mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Jesus to help her. 39So he bent over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up at once and began to wait on them. 40When the sun was setting, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them. 41Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.[h]
42At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. 43But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." 44And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.[i]

Matthew 8:3

Jesus Heals Many

14When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. 16When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
"He took up our infirmities
and carried our diseases."[c]

The text makes clear that the home belonged to both Peter and his brother Andrew...with Peter's mother-in-law living with them at home sick. As Andrew was a disciple of John at the time Christ called him--with it being the case that he had to go get Peter to come to Jesus the first time, John 1:35-48, Peter was the main "bread-winner".

I find this a disturbing argument from the standpoint of who Christ is...a Christ who knows the hearts of man, a Christ who is God in human form, doesn't know what awaits Him in the next town? How is that possible? I don't know, maybe the argument has some merit, but to claim that Jesus didn't know what was awaiting Him seems like a very far fetched way of justifying a belief, at least to me, someone who believes without doubt that Jesus was both God and man.

Click to expand...

On that note, you would probably have to deal with a pressuposition on your part that its impossible for Jesus to be God and yet, in his human form, not know ALL things ALL THE TIME. Scripture's already clear that in many things God had to GROW in both wisdom and knowledge...and in coming to earth, there were many ways he chose to limit himself when here, especially as it relates to RELYING ON THE HOLY Spirit for guidance.

Of paticular interest would be this:

Luke 2:51-52

51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Infused with the Grace of God (Luke 2:39-40)
"When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him." (2:40)

Going along with that

Hebrews 5/Hebrews 5:5

“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek”;[b]

7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,”

Another one to consider:'
Hebrews 2:7

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

"

...as to the second story here, again, I find it disturbing from the standpoint of trying to use this to justify one's prosperity theology

Click to expand...

........everyone believes in "Prosperity Theology" to one degree or another---for if working a JOB and praying for God to give grace for advancement/ability to provide for your own as well as others in need, that's the essence of being "prosperous". And on the issue, for one to say Jesus was rich as a statement of fact, doesn't mean they're trying to justify living RICH lifestyles themselves----no more than saying that the times Jesus went through times of being in need means we should always be in that position

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54131343 said:
Sorry, Bruh...but everyone believes in "Prosperity Theology" to one degree or another---for if working a JOB and praying for God to give grace for advancement/ability to provide for your own as well as others in need, that's the essence of being "prosperous". And on the issue, for one to say Jesus was rich as a statement of fact, doesn't mean they're trying to justify living RICH lifestyles themselves----no more than saying that the times Jesus went through times of being in need means we should always be in that position

Click to expand...

Continued from before

, that Jesus was asked where He was staying, as if the disciples didn't know where He was staying...
..if the dwelling was His by possession, why didn't the disciples know where it was?
Seems plausible that they would have know, I mean, even if we move, our friends and family, especially the close ones, will know before we move where the house is, so if this is referring to Jesus' possession of shelter, why didn't the disciples know where it was? again,

Click to expand...

Again, you may be reading more into the text than warranted----as if Jesus was known EVERYWHERE the moment he called his disciples to follow him or as if people all knew where he was at. Unless, of course, one can show from the text and culture that EVERYONE in the towns Jesus lived/traveled in knew where his residence was at.

But apart from that, it seems you're making an argument based on the logical fallacy of argument via personal incredulity/disbelief---that is, because you cannot believe something to be true, it must not be. And that seems to do damage to the text---as the bottom line is that in John 1, the disciples asked clearly where Jesus was staying when he came to them. That is an indication of wondering where someone lives at-----and no wonder, seeing the amount of people in a town and how some may have kept to themselves.

again, I don't find this a compelling argument simply because of translation and cultural differences....

Click to expand...

Don't have to---as you've already made clear where you stand and that you're not really concerned with seeing or considering otherwise. But on the issue of Matthew 13, there's a context...as the DAY before he "went out of the house", the parallel account of Mark 3:31-34 was clear that his mothers and brothers came for him in the area and he dealt with it (seeing that they lived in the area, most likely in the home Jesus was at--and hence, why it was such a scene when they came to find the house OVER-CROWDED and Jesus akin to a "Super-Star", to which they said "He has lost his mind in Mark 3:31....and as Mark 1 says even more clearer, there was a huge revival in town and it interrupted his time of GOING HOME to eat/fellowship (as he had just gotten done choosing the 12 disciples
Mark 3:13-35

The Appointing of the Twelve Apostles

13Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. 14He appointed twelve—designating them apostles[a]—that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach 15and to have authority to drive out demons. 16These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter 17 James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); 18Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot 19and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.Jesus and Beelzebub

20Then Jesus went home, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." 22And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, "He is possessed by Beelzebub[b]! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons."

23So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: "How can Satan drive out Satan? 24If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. 28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
30He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."
Jesus' Mother and Brothers

31Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." 33"Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

r had close friends and family that welcomed Him as their own flesh and blood....any of those three would work, but it is important to not leave out the options we don't like..

Click to expand...

No one said anything about the option being out that he had close friends/family whom he had connections with. But the text makes clear that Jesus in Mark 3:20 returned home....i.e., to the place where he stayed in Capernum. And on the same token, I'd say that it's important that you'd not leave out/dismiss the options you do not like (i.e. the idea of Jesus owning or renting)
Mark 2

Jesus Heals a Paralytic

1A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them.
If looking in Mark 2:1, it makes clear that Jesus was returning home from his time of preaching/ministry throughout GALILEE TO Capernum (c.20 miles [32km] northeast of Nazareth)..which serves as the base for his Galilean ministry. As occurred earlier, after he came from the home of Simon and Andrew in Mark 1:29-34,

Mark 1:35-38

35Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. 36Simon and his companions went to look for him, 37and when they found him, they exclaimed: "Everyone is looking for you!" 38Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come. 39So he traveled throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and driving out demons.
Jesus, though originally was mobile, later began a traveling ministry...and with the phrase "at home", many credible scholars make clear that it most likely means Jesus is currently living in Capernum at the time it was spoken. As the man was a Carpenter, additionally, Jesus could have easily found work for himself in making places to live---as well as being on the level of carpenter who were contractors/living differing places (much like today when one is a contractor/carpenter and making houses for others but at times living in what may be a temporary "project").

.. this could refer to home as in general location, I have a Haitian friend, when he goes home, he refers to going back to Haiti, not his apartment in Brooklyn....it could also refer to close friends, like some of ours, who we are always at home with when we visit, even to going into the house and making ourselves comfortable when they are not there....point being we can't read toooo much into what is written that we base an entire theology on what we want it to say.

Click to expand...

Of course there are differing usages of the word "home"---but on the issue, what cannot be missed is the fact that because there are differing usages of the term "Home" today in our cultural context, it does not logically follow that they had the same kind of dynamics back in the days of Christ--especially if already making clear one does not believe (nor is inclined to) that Jesus owned a house. And in Jewish culture As it is, seeing that he had many brothers/sisters to take care of as the ELDEST brother since his father Joseph died, it was incumbent upon the oldest male to ensure his own family had a place of residence/ability to be taken care of.

As it is, there's context on the issue--and for something to consider on the issue (in the event I'm not saying it the best way), as seen in the article entitled Did Jesus Christ Own A House? « Break Through To God:

Did Jesus Christ own a home? Traditionally, the consensus seems to run counter to the entire idea of Jesus having a home. Some have attempted to use Matthew 8.20 and Luke 9.58 as proof texts to argue such claims.

By way of a brief background to this question, remember that Luke, the author of Acts and his own Gospel, wrote (as a historian naturally would) in chronological order (see Luke 1:1,3).

Checking the context of the passage in question, we read in Luke 9:51-56:

“And it came to pass, when the time was come that he [Jesus] should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him [make arrangements for a place to stay]. And they [the residents of the village] did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.”

The Samaritans in this particular village did not allow Jesus to stay there because He was on His way to Jerusalem. The location of the Temple was a bone of contention between the Jewish people and the Samaritans (see John 4:20). The Samaritans maintained a rival “holy site” on Mount Gerizim.

Now read Luke 9:57-58, remembering the preceding verses: “And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.”

So how do we understand these verses in context? Jesus had wanted to lodge in a Samaritan village on His way to Jerusalem. The citizenry wouldn’t allow it. Therefore, Jesus — in the light of their denying Him overnight accommodations — told the young man that He had no place to stay at the moment.

In other words, at that particular time (“as they went in the way” [verse 57] from one Samaritan village to the next [see verse 56]) He was having difficulty in finding a place to stay overnight on His journey to Jerusalem. It was exemplary of His, at times, difficult ministry.

We also have to remember that when this statement is made, it is when Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem (to die). Logically, then, it only follows that Jesus has left His home for good. He was definitely not going back! These should be taken as narrative markers which reveal the urgency of Christ making His way to Golgotha. He knows it is going to be hostile and He knows He will die. Thus, when He makes this comment to the scribe, He essentially is asking Him to make a choice: Follow me, with the potential of dying or stay here where you are comfortable.

Thus, Jesus did NOT say in Luke 9:57-58 that He did not have a home.

More evidence is revealed in John 1:35-39 where John and two others followed Him to where He stayed.

“The next day John was standing there again with two of his disciples. As he watched Jesus walk by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. But when Jesus turned around and saw them following, he said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi,” (which is translated “Teacher&#8221, “where are you staying?” He told them, “Come, and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon.’

Mark 2:1-2 also says he stayed in a house and a plain English reading of this verse leaves no room for speculation really that Mark places the event he’s speaking of, in the home of Jesus (the Greek seems to suggest the same). There is no pause in the story and no other people mentioned whose home it could have been (it is commonly argued that this is the home of Peter but the text makes no such claim; further, when Jesus did go to Peter’s home just a few verses earlier, Mark didn’t hesitate to make that known). The International Standard Versionat home,” as does the Moffat, and Revised Standard Version. The New International Version even says “He had come home.”

Most scholars believe that Jesus lived and worked in Capernium prior to his ministry. He did travel a lot and many people get all caught up in the idea that Jesus Christ could not own property. They want to hang on to the stereotype of Jesus as a wandering, homeless, peasant preacher. This notion needs to be put to rest. The gospels tell us to open up our homes to the poor and I see no Biblical reason reason to believe that Jesus did not own a home or that He did not open it up to people. People are simply misreading and misanalyzing the scriptures. The original Greek gives no implied meanings stating otherwise. Jesus always returned to one general area and so it certainly is not out of the realm of possibility that this was where He lived. says “He was

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

razzelflabben said:
razzelflabben said:

be careful, Jesus said His father was God not Joseph, which means He would be in the business of loving people, not making furniture, at least on the merit of the premise here.

Click to expand...

Jesus having God as His Heavenly Father doesn't erase the reality of who his earthly Father was. For in JEWISH culture, though Jesus would have been known by himself as the Son of God/made clear His father was God, its not dealing with the text to say that Joseph was not his father and that Jesus didn't consider Joseph a parent in any kind of way. Additionally, it is not dealing with the culture of the times since every Jewish boy had a trade to be involved in----and though the art of carpentry was what his earthly father was into, it does not logically make sense to say Jesus was not in the business of making furniture. One can do both.

For a better perspective on the issue--as well as symbolism concerning the occupation of a carpenter---one can go to Jesus Christ the Carpenter and Important Symbolism of Jesus as the Son of a Carpenter ...

As it is, in Jewish culture, one was known by the name of their father/identified by that trade...and Joseph filled that role in many ways. Additionally, one could easily make a side argument that because God was Jesus's father, Jesus had no "mother"...but that would be silly since the text makes clear Jesus called Mary his "mother" various times ...and the scriptures make clear who his parents were that the Lord had chosen to raise Him in the Fear/Love of the Lord (Luke 2 )
Matthew 13:54-56 /
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. 55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57And they took offense at him.

Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

Luke 3:23
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Luke 3

Luke 4:22
All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. "Isn't this Joseph's son?" they asked.
Luke 4:21-23 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+4&version=NIV

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
John 1:44-46 /

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6:42&version=NIV

Of course, the text of Luke 2 comes to mind when he said he had to be in his father's house. Of course, from there (seeing how often Jesus honored his parents), as it was mistake for Christ to be in the temple----and as seen later, he defered to his parents and he chose to honor his father/mother in accordance with Jewish Law, Exodus 20:11-13/ /Deuteronomy 5:15-17 //Matthew 15:3-5 / /Ephesians 6:1-3 / . That all goes back to the issue of how growing in wisdom involves learning responsibility by parental rules/ enforcement until those rules -- and eventually those values -- become internalized within one's children...and it was very much that kind of reality for Christ, Hebrews 5:7-9 /http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=5&version=31&context=chapter
Luke 2:39-40
"When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong;he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him." (2:40)

Luke 2:51-52
51Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. 52And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.
And on the issue, it's something that has really had mmany pondering for a good bit. Specifically due to the reality of how often it seems that people focus on the Savior/His person and yet forget the reality of how it was also a matter of the PARENTS of Christ making a difference in his development.

Something coming to my mind:
Matthew 2:1

The Escape to Egypt

13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."[f]

People so often are quick to fast-foward toward the time of Christ when He was baptized by John and soon-after began ministry. But I'm still at Matthew 2 regarding how it took parents being responsible with the Lord that made a difference. If Joseph had chosen to not be responsible in obeying the Lord when he was warned to flee, that would've been the end of it. There had to be activity on the part of men in order for the savior to Survive. And on the issue, one must realize that this was no easy thing---as Mary would've still been nursing the Savior/feeding Him while on a very stressful journey that oftent ook days/months----and even more dangerous considering their poverty. Parents had to work together to save Christ...both in ensuring his safety and making certain that he remained healthy.

And on the issue of God working with His creation even with events He destined to come to pass, the bottom line issue is that we never would've had a Savior speaking truth via Parables without someone first choosing to be responsible in training the Savior as a toddler via Pampers. In that sense, could it not be said that the Savior had to be GROOMED by men AS WELL as by the Lord to become a Messiah He'd need to be for Mankind?

Did Jesus's parents teach Him how to have a prayer life? How to read scripture/Torah? How to revere the Ruach Ha Kodesh?

To be clear, in some circles one would cry "Heresy" for dare saying that Christ did not come perfect in the sense that He needed to have other things added to Him...but if the scriptures are true, I see no way to get around it.

wow, this argument takes the cake...I said that we should not forget that the disciples left their businesses to follow Jesus and I was told by you that that didn't mean their businesses were failing, but here, you quote "who were especially poor now that Joseph was temporarily not working in his trade" how is it that Mary and Joseph would have been poor because they were temporarily "laid off" but Jesus and the disciples would not have been equally poor when they were "laid off"? I simply don't see the consistency in this, please help me out here...why would Mary and Joseph be poor without consistent work in their profession but Jesus and the disciples wouldn't have been? What makes the difference?

Click to expand...

If you're to going to say "I said...", please try to do so within CONTEXT--as I made clear that when the DISICPLES left to follow Jesus (as several of the first disciples were not poor but rather self-employed fishermen..and as in the case of James/John in Mark 1:20 alongside their partner Peter, were part of a family buisness), they did not do so with it meaning that their buisnesses fell apart...and as they did have families to be taken care of, provision was ensured for those left behind as they went on the Mission Field/Pilgrimage with Christ for the time they did.

The quote you're discussing with Joseph/Mary was not even MY QUOTE--as it was by John Macarther. So do not attribute what he said to me. Not saying I disagree with it...but credit where it's due, of course. Additionally, what happened with Joseph and Mary has nothing to do with the reality of what the disciples dealt with when they had to walk away from their buisnessess. With Peter, James and John--again, their buisness was in TACT and still able to give provision since they were well-off and it was a family buisisness that the Father of the Sons of Zebedee was still involved in when they left. Same with Matthew the Tax-Collector---who was already well off enough to be able to throw an expensive party in a short amount of time/with ease. If he took a break, it would not have cost him much financially-----especially seeing how shrewd Tax-COllectors already were in savings/finance and not doing anything without making certain funds are in place for later.

Additionally, seeing where Joseph and Mary were at during the time when they WERE poor, there was more than enough time to build up/move in rank when it came to the art of carpentery. Just because they were poor when Joseph was "temporarily laid off" does not mean that it HAS to be the same way continually in the future....and with Jesus, who was already well known/easily able to build up in time to provide for his own mother/family when his father had become more established...died...and passed it on for Jesus to continue, it's a differing gig.

Going back a bit/seeing the situations Joseph was in when having Jesus as a baby, its granted that not being able to stay in an inn could have easily been a matter of simply not being able to STAY in an inn due to room rather than ability to pay. And of course, it could have been the case that perhaps they didn't have ALOT--with Joseph using money in savings for hard times he stocked up for emergencies (and the Journey was indeed a TOUGH one)...And with anyone raising kids/expecting, you know you have to save up for the worst..and sometimes, with all the craziness of having a baby, you don't play--or, at least you intend not too and can make wild mistakes when flustered.

By no means was he necessarily "ESQUIRE" magazine quality--and on the issue, it's significant to see that Joseph and Mary could afford only so much when it came to sacrifices made when Christ was 8 days old.as what they brought was generally the cheapest available when one could not afford a lamb to bring, as seen in Leviticus 5:6-8/ , Leviticus 12:7-8 , Leviticus 14:21-23 http://forums.carm.org/passage/?search=Leviticus+14&version=NIV
Luke 2:23

Jesus Presented in the Temple

21On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. 22When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"[]), 24and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."[]

However, though one could say that meant that Mary/Joseph were DIRT Poor, I think we have to be open to differing views...as it could also be the case that perhaps they were in hard times with the endeavors Joseph was in---as has often happened with many having small buisinesses that were good but fell on the rocks for a bit/what was affordable went up and changes in budgeting came up.

But with Joseph being a "carpenter" (tecnhically, a Stone Mason..which had MUCH work at various times more than just working with wood), the job describes the kind of economic mobility and ability he'd have..as well as Jesus later on when inheriting the Family Buisness. Seeing that as the First Adam was created to WORK, so it was with Jesus. For even He had a JOB/PROFITABLE trade and handled his buisness. As mentioned before..

Gxg (G²) · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54131566 said:
Seeing that as the First Adam was created to WORK, so it was with Jesus. For even He had a JOB/PROFITABLE trade and handled his buisness. As mentioned before..

Click to expand...

Again, its an issue of progression of time.........and the fact of build-up---no different than what happens today when one starts out small/cannot afford to miss work because they're trying to make it...but they build up in time to where they can/their offspring can out do them----with it being possible for them to do more things than their predecessors.

As far as finances, seems logical/reasonable that while He was a carpenter, prior to His ministry, that He did pretty good - needs were met, nobody starving, a standard middle class carpenter. But He was not "filthy rich" in the financial department regarding how riches were measured in that time period.

And He was not "dirt poor" either. Even when He left the profession and began ministry (which did not happen for at least 18 years), His needs were met. And the disciples needs were met, too. I believe much of what Jesus was trying to teach His first disciples was how to be totally dependant on God without relying on their own skills or trades (even though they can come in handy), but rather to rely on faith in God. That's not to say that they didn't work from time to time, but that God did provide, one way or another. With Jesus, there will always be provision. There is the reality, of course, that many often say things akin to how those truly following Christ would NEVER be rich---even though they still seek to live at a prosperous level of income/life....and by nature, doing things that show they wish to be prosperous. The fact of Christ multiplying resources on MULTIPLE occasions is something I'd think would be demonstration that He was able to take care of buisness...( Matthew 15:28-30/ Matthew 15 /Mark 8:1-3 / Mark 8 /Matthew 14:12-14 Matthew 14 /Mark 6:29-31 / Mark 6 /Luke 9:9-11 / Luke 9 /John 6:1-3/ John 6 , etc). It was never the case that Jesus ever had to deal with or even face STARVATION & BEGGING FOR FOOD......and even the Devil noted that He could feed Himself at ANY time He so desired due to His Provision via the Father/Holy Spirit and Being God...as seen in the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, Matthew 4:2-4 Matthew 4

With multiplication of resources, I'm always amazed seeing the issue of quality verses quanity---for when Jesus did the miracle at the wedding at Cana in John 2 , indeed, it was not just a matter of wine being multiplied since that would've been nothing special...just as resources multiplied in/of themselves are not special if not done with quality/reliability. Jesus made the BEST WINE for the event...and likewise, it's always amazing to see Him multiply his BEST for His Glory

But again....not suprising...as that's the essence of Biblical Prosperity. Jesus's ministry had all it needed and even weeks of operating cash. When taxes were due, He sent Peter fishing - not the nets of fish to sell, but a solitary fish. When they were faced with sending people off hungry, they blessed a handful of fish and loaves and fed thousands of people. THAT is prosperity,

razzelflabben said:

reading this makes me wonder why even in the conclusion there can not be some middle ground, I mean, why is it necessary for Jesus and the disciples to be either wealthy or "dirt poor" why not, just poor? why not just well off? why not needs met? Why only the extremes?

Click to expand...

If you would cease assuming that others are not for such, then perhaps there'd not be a problem.

For the reality is that, if reading all of what I've said, that "rich" and "poor" can have varying levels...and that it doesn't mean that Jesus was "living luxurious" when one says that he was "rich"---no more than it'd be for me living in middle class/saying "I'm not RICH!!" despite how I have a car, running water, T.V. and many other things others around the world would consider "high living". And many times, appearances can be deceiving

Again, it's you...and ONLY you..that is reading extremes into the issue.

18 Then I realized that it is good and proper for a man to eat and drink, and to find satisfaction in his toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given himfor this is his lot. 19 Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his workthis is a gift of God. 20 He seldom reflects on the days of his life, because God keeps him occupied with gladness of heart Ecclesiastes 5:18-20 Ecclesiastes 5
(in Context)
One reading the life of Solomon (who was exceptionally rich/wealthy) and seeing his perspective in Ecclesiastes gives a more complete view to the issue of prosperity, IMHO, when it comes to the way many in WOF use it (i.e. "LIVE LIKE A KING'S KID!!! GOD WANTS YOU RICH ALL THE TIME!!!"): Ecclesiastes 1Ecclesiastes 2 , Ecclesiastes 3, Ecclesiastes 4 , Ecclesiastes 5:10-17, Ecclesiastes 5, Ecclesiastes 6, Ecclesiastes 7 , Ecclesiastes 8 , Ecclesiastes 9 , Ecclesiastes 11, & Ecclesiastes 12

Others are found within I Timothy 6 when it comes to rich believers and their responsibilities. Though even on that, it's odd seeing what we often set up as the indicators for whether or not a person's rich. If they have "bling" and much accessories, then they're rich. But funny seeing that many people who're truly rich we probably would never suspect or know about unless they told us. One kat I know of was apparently a Custodian....the man didn't look like much/seemed to be lower-class, and in his apartment complex, the landlord would always bully him/despise him due to his social status. Ironically, however, the Custodian was actually richer than the landlord due to the IMMENSE revenue he recieved from doing the job no one else would do with cleaning waste/garbage.....and he apparently collaborated with other Custodians to form a Union/Go on strike. People were helping to fund the Custodian/benefits were coming in unusual ways.....and all of it would've never been noticed due to how the custodian chose to LIVE ON FAR LESS than his financial means warranted.....

What people on the thread (as well as myself) are responding to is primarily the thought others try to say when making it out as if Jesus was a pauper and not for Biblical Prosperity as taught in much of WOF

At times, what others often say seems to be in line with what's taught in Asectism theology---which is unfortunate ....as this is the image IMMEDIATELY coming to mind regarding how many see the Lord:

To be clear, the concept of "POOR Jesus" is not just a WOF issue---as I know of other circles that hold to the same. It's very prevelant in the Emerging/Emergent Church camp when it comes to working with the impoverished and the mentality that CHrist went against our common views we have of Him today. Don't know if I have the right book in mind, but I believe in "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell there was the view placed forth that the robes CHrist will come back in will be dirty like the homeless ones He had growing up rather than pure/spotless and looking nice
__________________

Also, on the issue of Christ owning a home, some more info to consider, AS BEST SEEN in Did Jesus have a house in Capernaum - NT Blog:

I've always been intrigued with this verse in Mark, as suggesting that Jesus may have had a house in Capernaum:
Mark 2.15: [FONT=palatino linotype, Gentium, Cardo]καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ[/FONT]

And it happened that he was reclining in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who were following him . . .
This may be an example of the criterion I was recently discussing, accidental information, or material given away in passing, where a piece of data (here: Jesus had a house in Capernaum) is assumed and not narrated. However, there is another way to take the verse. Is Mark intending the reader to take the [FONT=palatino linotype, Gentium, Cardo]αὐτοῦ[/FONT] (his) with reference to Levi, who has just been called to follow Jesus? This is the way that most commentators across the centuries have taken it, but I suspect that this is under the influence of Luke, who makes this a great party in Levi's house (Luke 5.29). Incidentally, I can't help wondering how Levi had the resources to finance this big party if he had just left everything (Luke 5.28); perhaps it was long last big bash with his old mates before setting off on the road with Jesus; or perhaps by "everything", Luke means his career and his means of earning a living (cf. the same pattern in the Zacchaeus story in Luke 19.1-10, where the tax-collector is called, and Jesus invites himself to tea).

But Mark's text encourages the reader to imagine Jesus hosting the party at his own place in Capernaum. After all, he has just asked Levi to follow him (Mark 2.14) and from that point onwards, Levi is absorbed into the anonmymous following disciples group in Mark, not even listed as one of the twelve in Mark 3.13-19. Mark 2.15-18 is a new pericope in Mark, and it is probably Mark himself who has bolted this pericope onto the Call of Levi in 2.13-14, in which case he may well have inherited this tradition about Jesus partying in his house without a link with the Levi tradition.

I am not sure why we should be surprised at the note that Jesus may have had a house in Capernaum. After all, Capernaum does seem to be the hub of his mission in Galilee. Perhaps we allow ourselves to be seduced by the saying in Matt. 8.20 // Luke 9.58, "Foxes have their holes and the birds of the air have their nests . . ." But even if Jesus said that, we don't know when he said it, and it could reflect a later, itinerant stage of his mission.

If Jesus the craftsman had a career in Capernaum, perhaps this is how he got to know those later to become his disciples.

If Mark 2.1-12 also depicts Jesus at his house (2.1, [FONT=palatino linotype, Gentium, Cardo]ἐν οἴκῳ[/FONT], "at home"), perhaps that is why he says "Child, your sins are forgiven" -- they've just dug a big hole through the roof of Jesus' house and he's going to have to get up there later on to mend it.

razzelflabben · Feb 11, 2010

Easy G (G²);54131343 said:
Curious as to whether or not you've studied any of the cultural dynamics of the day in Jewish culture when it comes to family dynamics/finances. If willing, I'll go back and complile a list of sources on the issue one can look up---as studying with others within Messianic Judaism and meeting with the Jewish Rabbi I meet with weekly as well as many other teachers on the issue, it has always been a trip seeing how often people will discuss what it is that do and do not see as reasonable and yet no one will actually deal with the cultural dynamics of the time. But on the issue, as Jesus and the disciples were JEWISH, it was a big deal for families to ensure that they had resources/inheritance stocked up for the families---and when traveling, as others supported them full them on the road--there were other sources of income as well.

Click to expand...

I find it curious that just because someone deems what was said as a disagreement, it is naturally assumed that one has not studied? Ah well, what do you think I have amiss in this statement....I talked about and included that wealth would have been passed down, and yet here you seem to think I don't understand that passing down of wealth, so what am I missing, that will help...and I talked about additional sources of income as well...in fact, everything you say here is pretty much what I have been saying and yet you suggest I haven't studied the culture....how does that follow?

I think, however, what you're doing is still trying to take the situation as you've experienced and reading that back into the text as to how they would have done. For in that time, do you understand the dynamics of what was required of Jewish Men/believers in the Torah to do for their own families...and how COMMUNITY based the Jewish culture was?

Click to expand...

here's what confuses me, I can't figure out what you think I am saying that counters any of this???? What do you think I am saying?

Whether or not one owned a home, by the way, doesn't relate to the fact that one necessarily is "HOMELESS"...

Click to expand...

okay, I'm thinking I am starting to clarify some of what you think I said....I never suggested homelessness of anyone, only that it could not be ruled out by terms of what scripture actually says.

As there are plenty of people who live with their parents/have provision given to them while they also do jobs to aid in their families (such as paying "rent" for room/board..or, if getting that for free, doing chores around the house/aiding the parents in what they ask while they as young adults are free to go to school). But they still have a permanent place of residence.

Click to expand...

well since I never suggested they didn't have a residence, only that that residence might not have been in their name, and since I said that the community (the community you claim I don't understand) would have cared for those in their family and close friends, I am once again lost as to what you believe I am suggesting, and what you think I have wrong...

But with

Mark 1:29-34
As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. 30Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they told Jesus about her. 31So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them. 32That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. 33The whole town gathered at the door, 34and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Click to expand...

if we are talking about the way this is translated, not how it should be, another issue I brought up, why would Simon's mother in law be in a sick bed in her child's house, wouldn't she be in her own house, that is, if it was not a family house...

Luke 4:33

Jesus Heals Many

38Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon. Now Simon's mother-in-law was suffering from a high fever, and they asked Jesus to help her. 39So he bent over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up at once and began to wait on them. 40When the sun was setting, the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness, and laying his hands on each one, he healed them. 41Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.[h]
42At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them. 43But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent." 44And he kept on preaching in the synagogues of Judea.[i]

Click to expand...

in other words, it would be shared expenses, not just the money from their own buisness, in fact, if mother in law is living there, it is likely that the house was inherited, not purchased by his own hand...but again, that is not an absolute, which is what I have been saying all this time...

Matthew 8:3

Jesus Heals Many

14When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. 15He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him. 16When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
"He took up our infirmities
and carried our diseases."[c]

Click to expand...

The text makes clear that the home belonged to both Peter and his brother Andrew...with Peter's mother-in-law living with them at home sick. As Andrew was a disciple of John at the time Christ called him--with it being the case that he had to go get Peter to come to Jesus the first time, John 1:35-48, Peter was the main "bread-winner".

Click to expand...

???? So if my two sons, go together and buy a house, one leaving for a season, it is the one who leaves that is automatically the main bread winner? Why can't they share the responsibility, or why can't the one leaving be the main bread winner, or the one staying...I think the significance here is that they were "poor" enough that sharing responsibility was a wise thing..., I mean wealth, would dictate they each owned their own homes, not a community family home as we see here. Now please don't twist this, I'm not saying they were destitute, never have, only that the text does not support wealth.

On that note, you would probably have to deal with a pressuposition on your part that its impossible for Jesus to be God and yet, in his human form, not know ALL things ALL THE TIME. Scripture's already clear that in many things God had to GROW in both wisdom and knowledge...and in coming to earth, there were many ways he chose to limit himself when here, especially as it relates to RELYING ON THE HOLY Spirit for guidance.

Click to expand...

now if He knew the hearts of men, why wouldn't He also know what awaited HIm in the next town...if He knew where the donkey he would ride was standing, how does it stand to reason that He didn't know where He would sleep that night...point being that we can't make the jump you did and still stay within the context of what scripture says about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Sorry, Bruh...but everyone believes in "Prosperity Theology" to one degree or another---for if working a JOB and praying for God to give grace for advancement/ability to provide for your own as well as others in need, that's the essence of being "prosperous". And on the issue, for one to say Jesus was rich as a statement of fact, doesn't mean they're trying to justify living RICH lifestyles themselves----no more than saying that the times Jesus went through times of being in need means we should always be in that position

Click to expand...

???? More of me being confused by what you think I believe.....????

"Silver or gold I do not have"

Contributor

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Contributor

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Contributor

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Contributor

Similar threads