"Silver or gold I do not have"

Easy G (G²);54138482 said:

razzelflabben said:

Wrong, as I said our culture is nothing like it in ALL aspects. Never was it said that all things in the culture then had nothing in common with things today---hence, why it was said earlier that the disciples (several of them) were small businessmen and worked jobs as they do today. You've not been paying attention--and need to do better

Click to expand...

I don't think this was ever questioned, so how could it be the point of debate? What do you think I have wrong if this was not disagreed with and yet you think this is our point of disagreement?

Again, need to pay attention better...as the son being able to make more than the parents when he goes into the trade/takes over (As Joseph died by them) does not go counter to saying that the oldest son cared for all the other members
Mockers generally like to do that---though not surprising (Proverbs 14:6)
And again, "dirt poor" is not a minority---basic fact in Human Services, Bruh.

Click to expand...

????????? what are you talking about???????????????? I am so confused and getting even more confused with each post....when did I say anything about Joseph dieing? This whole part here was simply because I stated that Jesus would not have been the only bread winner in the family...from that you somehow get something about Joseph dieing and the disciples not being businessmen and something about "dirt poor" being a reality...for heaven sakes man, all I said is that Jesus would not have been the only bread winner for His entire family, in fact, sooner or later every son would have done their part to contribute to their own families needs...it didn't fall on Jesus to be the sole provider for everyone in His family, they would have become men and woman with their own lives as well. You really need to stop reading into things what is not there.

Again, wrote about it before---but if you're not going to address respectfully what I already wrote, don't waste my time.

Click to expand...

I would love to address what you wrote, I just don't know what your point is to address it.

Wrong, as context also involved Solomon working dilligently and God blessing the work he did-----if reading through I Kings. Of course it was never argued that all wealth was NOT from the Lord's Blessing..
And who said otherwise...and moreover, as you were not the first to bring it up, why are you acting as if you did with sarcasm? Really..

Click to expand...

where were you some time ago when Pete and I had this discussion about where wealth comes from? in that discussion, I was told that our wealth is by our own hands as God gives us strength. I showed through scripture that not only does God strengthen our hands to work, but that He is also the one who gives wealth, to which I was told once again that I was indeed wrong. Now your telling me that that discussion never happened, that no one said that God doesn't give wealth.....where were you when that discussion took place?

Sorry--but from the jump, you've neither dealt accurately with what I've said---or, for that matter, the many others who have been discussing on this thread. Do better please
No one said otherwise--and again, it is ONLY YOU reading "extremes" into my posts.
Again, when you pay better attention to what is being said/sit down for a bit, come back for discussion

Click to expand...

if I knew what in the heck you are responding to it would help, based on the above it certainly isn't what I said that you are responding to.....how about you try to show me what you don't understand about what I am saying, we are more in agreement than in disagreement and yet you like so many others argue, and I don't know what you are arguing about....explain to me in specifics, what you think is wrong with the comment that Jesus would not have been the only bread winner for His parents, grandparents, brothers, their families, sisters and their families....what am I missing, nothing in the culture says that His family would have just been sitting there not contibuting while He did all the work...so show me in the culture where they would have been "retired" so that big brother would care for all their needs and how then does that exempt the oldest son from their respective families...remember context. I was responding to a post that said that Jesus would have had to be wealth to take care of all the needs of His family because He would have been responsible for all of them, including His parents. To which I said, that He would not be the sole bread winner, that they would have all been contributing to their own households....show me what I got wrong, not in wordy discourse, but in specific detail.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54138618 said:

Again, moving on (as we have a failure to pay attention/remember on your account what was said but acting as if what others respond to is nowhere what you were saying).
Wrong--and again, most scholars do not support you on the matter anyhow..let alone, Jewish culture/dynamics. But believe as you'd like.
Wrong--as you suggested the home was not belonging to Peter. Do not switch mid-way in convo
As you're not paying attention well, no surprise you don't have a clue or are unable to compute.
As it is, seeing that you've not dealt with the text or shown culturally how it was otherwise, you need to actually show what went down "possibly" rather than ignore in favor for whatever supports you.

Click to expand...

Again, sit down...and think...as you're looking to when Peter was following Christ later/aiding others. I'm talking in no uncertain terms about before he began anything in ministry years earlier as it relates to his beginning business. As much as you discuss being careful on assumptions, you've been quick throughout this discussion/thread to read in your own and excuse yourself on it-----most of it being either strawmen or arguments where you make someone's argument look ridiculious and then fight against that.

Click to expand...

In the environment that Peter and the others lived, you would have to be working hard. Especially seeing what the economics of the time were like. And being fishermen was no easy job. And when he met Jesus, he had to have many of his views changed. Already was it the case that he did not immediately follow Jesus when he called the first couple of times because each time he was WORKING HARD. And it's cool to see how the very nature of Christ was challenge the views of those who knew about their trades/crafts. For in Luke 5/Luke 5:1, Jesus is teaching the crowds while Peter is working. And Jesus challenges Him to do things differently than before. Luke 5 makes clear how much of a surprise it was for Simon Peter and James and John when Jesus told them to put out to deep water....for though Jesus was a working man the fact remains that He was a carpenter rather than a fisherman...while in contrast, his disciples were professionals whose families had drawn fish from the lake for generations. For Jesus to have given advice that increased the fruit of their labors, Proverbs 3:12, must have been amazing....to see that Jesus would know more about catching fish than he did. And from THAT point on, Peter learned more about trusting Jesus for supernatural provision

Click to expand...

Again, as scripture is full of MULTIPLE accounts of him only doing things via the Holy Spirit/Revelation from God as opposed to Divine Omniscience, its a moot point.

Click to expand...

And again, when you want to deal with scripture fully, then you may wish to come back. As it is, you already made up your mind what to believe before reading it and even if text says otherwise, you cannot see it.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54138838 said:

And again, what you said does not deal with the text---as Jesus being about his Father's business has nothing to do with the text making clear he was also in the business of being a CARPENTER/Glorifying God through that---as His Father's Business had nothing to do with being seperate from his trade. That's assumption.

Click to expand...

When you actually deal with the cultural dynamics of the day, as that's part of textual criticism. Understanding the historical and cultural basis...and with the text, understanding what it took for a man to own/have hired servants in a Galiean Fishing business

Click to expand...

.And again, no need to play with the text (as it's not exhaustive)---and, for that matter, it was already the case that if you're apart of a BUSINESS in Jewish times, then you'd have others to take care of your equipment. As they were following Jesus and (according to your logic) knew of other ways to provide for themselves, its nothing to trip over.

Click to expand...

Again, deal logically with the text---as if they left it all behind with their father (and Jesus already came to them previous times), then there's no need assuming they lost it all---especially if their father was a big player in the business and there was already the possibility of them considering to follow Christ. It would have been covered.

Click to expand...

And again, what has been stated is that one must assume their business was not profitable and one must avoid dealing with the text if not acknowledging that they could return to work in 3 days time/still make a living as before.

Click to expand...

As said before, if the disciples were WELL-TO-DO and in differing states, then its lgoical. Why you seem to see that as a "double-standard" is silly

Click to expand...

But were BOTH from PROSPEROUS families/well-to-do fathers in business? This is a common sense issue, Bruh.....like assuming why people working minimum wage cannot afford to take off time from work with as much coverage as someone working a very well-paying job. If one just started/is living from pay-check to pay-check while another has a steady source of sustainable income, it's a different reality. And the text makes clear that Joseph and Mary were extremely poor at one point. That cannot be avoided. It does not say, however, the same for the disciples.

Click to expand...

Again, if you want to have a reasonable discussion, cool. But if you wish to whine on it rather than deal with what's said, that is your problem.

As it is, no one is asking you to respond or address anything---and as it is, you came after others and switch along the way your argument.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54139096 said:

I asked specifically for it to be shown that "Jesus returned home" meant that it was in reference to his home country---as I was discussing houses and you brought up a point about it meaning "home country" as well (which was not in the context of discussion).

Click to expand...

Where did I ask you to show such? I said that home means "House"---and though it's likely Jesus could have owned it, its also likely that others could have owned it and he lived with them.

Click to expand...

Again, I've not disagreed with you that home could mean the home of another---but where I DID disagree was that in context of the scriptures I brought up, its error to say it means "homecountry" rather than a physical dwelling. Again, where did I say otherwise?

Click to expand...

ydouxist said:

Act 3:6 Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk."


I'm curious to hear opinions on this passage as to why Peter had no money.

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

Easy G (G²);54138482 said:

I don't think this was ever questioned,

Click to expand...

If it was never questioned, than when I made the statement, it should have been left alone. If one chooses to pick it up/debate on it rather than simply saying "I agree", then there's little option but to conclude "Ok, this person is nit-picking on the point/disagreeing since what I just said was not acknowledged for what it was...""



I am so confused and getting even more confused with each post....when did I say anything about Joseph dieing?
This whole part here was simply because I stated that Jesus would not have been the only bread winner in the family...from that you somehow get something about Joseph dieing and the disciples not being businessmen and something about "dirt poor" being a reality..

Click to expand...

Didn't say or indicate that you said anything about Joseph dying----as I was the one making the point. So no need acting as if I was attributing the point to you since I was making an overall point that when Jesus had grown far older (even to the point where Joseph had been long dead and Jesus, being the oldest, had to look out for the family), he would have logically been at a better position in life than his father and not necessarily in the same position of being "poor" as Joseph/Mary were.

Again, if you cannot please slow down/think and read a bit before responding, then there's no further need for us to be discussing the issue as we're speaking past each other.

.for heaven sakes man, all I said is that Jesus would not have been the only bread winner for His entire family, in fact, sooner or later every son would have done their part to contribute to their own families needs...it didn't fall on Jesus to be the sole provider for everyone in His family, they would have become men and woman with their own lives as well.

Click to expand...

And again, regardless of whether or not others became bread winners, the reality is that in Jewish culture inheritance went to the ELDEST first and it was upon that person to look out for the family. The other reality is that regardless of whether or not others were expected to contribute to the family, that was not a guarantee that they always did---just as there are many Jewish families that had many sons but many were irresponsible (or unable) to provide for the family.......just as in the OT when sons did not often meet their responsibilities properly.


Jesus was the FIRST-Born son of Joseph/Mary...and there were certain realities that fell with that.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17


The Right of the Firstborn

15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.​

For the first-born son often grew up with the expectation that he would work with his father and share the responsibility of providing for the family, and he was often designated as the person who would inherit the farm or business. In most cases, he was groomed to assume this role and given heavy responsibilities to help manage the family affairs. Depending on his age at the time of his father's death, he was usually the person who took over, settled the estate, cared for his mother and other siblings, and performed other functions. Widows were often considered incapable of providing for their children, and the custody of the children was often awarded to guardians—including older male siblings. An eldest son may have been named guardian or trustee of one or more of his younger siblings.

While many fathers provided for their sons, the second- and third-born sons often lived in the shadow of one or more older brothers. Unless the father was a man of some means, younger sons' right of inheritance was usually diminished either by his family or by law. If he inherited at all, it was usually a bequest of lesser value or of inferior quality than that of his older brother. If the sons were inadequate for handling affairs, that made the situation even more hairy to deal with. And it's the main reasons behind why Jesus blessed his mother with John before He died---for as the FIRST-Born, making certain others were cared for came upon HIS shoulders and not the rest of the family.

John 19:24
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.​

This is keeping with the biblical injunction to honor ones parent...for Jesus made provision for his mother--who was most certainly a widow and probably in her late 40's or early 50s, with little to no personal income. Of course, his mother's sister was Salome---who was the mother of the sons of Zebedee (well off, by the way), James and John. And with that in place, of course Jesus made certain that he family was taken care of. While on the cross, Jesus gave Mary to the care of John because Mary had NO OTHER SONS to take up the responsibility/authority of the "first-born" . For in the abscense of the Father, the "first-born" took up the responsibility as HEAD OF THE FAMILY. This is basic reality within Jewish culture.


All of this can be more discovered in what's known as the LAWS OF INHERITANCE of the First-Born. And for more info, one can go online and look up the following:

• Return to God .,

• Inheritance Practices in the First Century Era,

• Jewish Law - Articles ("Halacha and the Conventional Last Will and
• ..

• Why did Jesus ask John just prior to His death to take care of His ...

• The "Brothers and Sisters"of Jesus: Anything New?

• Did Jesus Say His Mother Had Other Sons? (which is very interesting since it brings up the point of how "brothers" can have differing meanings and it's possible that Jesus's "brothers" were not really other sons had by Mary as much as "cousins"...though the arguments are not consistent in all parts, IMHO)
  
• Jewish Law - Articles ("The Establishment of Maternity & Paternity ... and Firstborn

The issue of character, as it relates to how one handles their wealth/provision and their own lives, is another key issue to deal with concerning Jesus looking out for his mother. As another ministry said best:

Jesus Cares for His Mother


Jesus did not commend His mother to His brothers because at this time they were not yet believers (see Jn. 7:5; Mt. 12:47-50).[8] The idea that the Savior did not have any brothers through Mary or that all references in Scripture to His brothers means cousins or close relatives is the legacy of Romanist exegesis. It is disproved by Matthew 13:54-56 where the Jews in our Lord’s hometown (Nazareth) compared the miracle-working Jesus to His ordinary brothers and sisters in an attempt to question the validity of His ministry. It would have been absurd for the inhabitants of Nazareth to compare Christ to His cousins. Further, the Word of God in speaking prophetically of our Lord’s brothers states explicitly that these brothers were Mary’s children not cousins. “I have become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s children” (Ps. 69:8). These brothers were not equipped spiritually at the time of the crucifixion to be Mary’s companions or guardians. Fortunately, however, God had mercy on these brothers, for after the resurrection of Jesus, only days after the ascension we find them worshipping with the apostles and Mary (Ac. 1:14).

Interestingly, one can even discern a pattern in the Old Testament of believing parents being cared for by godly children, even when there were unbelieving or unfaithful children who were already (according to the flesh) first in line. “Abraham lived with Isaac and Jacob, not with Ishmael, or with his sons by Keturah. Issac lived with Jacob, not Esau, and Jacob lived under the care and supervision of Joseph and therefore gave to Joseph a double portion by adopting Joseph’s two sons as heirs on equal terms with all this other sons (Gen. 48:5, 6).”[9] For Bible-believing Christians, personal godliness and faithfulness to Jehovah are far more important than physical birth.


The New Testament epistles also teach that believing children and grandchildren should honor their progenitors. Paul writes: “If any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God” (1 Tim. 5:4).The fifth commandment is not just speaking about attitudes or words spoken to parents but also applies to concrete acts of piety. A believer’s first religious duty toward his parents when they are old and feeble is to lovingly care for their physical and spiritual needs. Fairbairn comments,

The expression, to show piety (eusebien) to such, points back to the fifth commandment, in which the honouring of parents is placed in immediate connection with the reverence and homage due to God, and the things which most nearly concern His glory: that in youthful bosoms is the germ of fealty to God, and so its becoming exercise is reckoned a department of piety. To do this first, therefore, toward their own house, as having a prior claim even in comparison of what is due to the church or house of God, and to do it in the way of substantial ministrations of relief, which in such a case are but returns for similar ministrations formerly received (Matt. xv. 4-6), is acceptable before God; He regards it in a manner as done to Himself, and sees in it the earnest of future worth. The homes in which such reverential feelings are cherished, and such acts of lovingkindness are reciprocated, are the best nurseries of the church—churches themselves, indeed, in embryo, because the homes of Christian tenderness, holy affection, self-denying love, and fruitfulness in well-doing.[10]
​

The fact that our Lord turned the care of His believing mother over to a dedicated Christian instead of unbelieving relatives teaches us something important about the church and the family. It teaches that one’s faith in Christ takes precedence over family or blood relations. All professing Christians must take great care not to place covenant children or aged believing parents in the hands of unbelieving caretakers. To do so, is to deliberately place that person in spiritual danger by forcing them to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14-18). This principle applies as much to the heathen state (“public”) school as it does to the unchristian and uncaring pagan nursing facility. We must follow the Savior’s example by making the spiritual care of loved ones a top priority.
​

You really need to stop reading into things what is not there. [/QUOTEI would love to address what you wrote,

Click to expand...

I wish you'd first do the same for yourself (as you've been failing to do from the jump in this conversation when you first came after me/addressed one of my postings). But I do not suspect such will happen.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by razzelflabben
I just don't know what your point is to address it. where were you some time ago when Pete and I had this discussion about where wealth comes from? in that discussion, I was told that our wealth is by our own hands as God gives us strength. I showed through scripture that not only does God strengthen our hands to work, but that He is also the one who gives wealth, to which I was told once again that I was indeed wrong. Now your telling me that that discussion never happened, that no one said that God doesn't give wealth.....where were you when that discussion took place?

Click to expand...

if I knew what in the heck you are responding to it would help, based on the above it certainly isn't what I said that you are responding to.....how about you try to show me what you don't understand about what I am saying, we are more in agreement than in disagreement and yet you like so many others argue,

Click to expand...

and I don't know what you are arguing about....explain to me in specifics, what you think is wrong with the comment that Jesus would not have been the only bread winner for His parents, grandparents, brothers, their families, sisters and their families....what am I missing, nothing in the culture says that His family would have just been sitting there not contibuting while He did all the work.

..so show me in the culture where they would have been "retired" so that big brother would care for all their needs and how then does that exempt the oldest son from their respective families...remember context.

Click to expand...

I was responding to a post that said that Jesus would have had to be wealth to take care of all the needs of His family because He would have been responsible for all of them, including His parents. To which I said, that He would not be the sole bread winner, that they would have all been contributing to their own households....show me what I got wrong, not in wordy discourse, but in specific detail.

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

if this is the best you can do to show me wrong, that is, assume to know what I said and/or intended and in that accuse me, there is no purpose to my being here at all.

Click to expand...

so you don't think they were businessmen? Didn't you just say they were? I am sooooooooooooooooooooooo confused..

Click to expand...

.. the point is that we cannot build an entire belief system over assumptions made in the text, especially assumptions that can easily be explained away..

Click to expand...

.?????????????????????????????? masses more confusion....the text is what I am dealing with????????????????????????????????

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54146455 said:

Didn't say or indicate that you said anything about Joseph dying----as I was the one making the point. So no need acting as if I was attributing the point to you since I was making an overall point that when Jesus had grown far older (even to the point where Joseph had been long dead and Jesus, being the oldest, had to look out for the family), he would have logically been at a better position in life than his father and not necessarily in the same position of being "poor" as Joseph/Mary were.

Click to expand...

Again, if you cannot please slow down/think and read a bit before responding, then there's no further need for us to be discussing the issue as we're speaking past each other.

Click to expand...

if we are reading past each other, why am I the only one who needs to slow down, think, and read, if we are reading past each other, wouldn't we both need to slow down, think, and read....?

And again, regardless of whether or not others became bread winners, the reality is that in Jewish culture inheritance went to the ELDEST first

Click to expand...

never debated...

and it was upon that person to look out for the family.

Click to expand...

again, never entered into the debate....

The other reality is that regardless of whether or not others were expected to contribute to the family, that was not a guarantee that they always did---just as there are many Jewish families that had many sons but many were irresponsible (or unable) to provide for the family.......just as in the OT when sons did not often meet their responsibilities properly.

Click to expand...

and so, the grown adult children just let the older brother do everything? How does that even function in a society? Eventually, only 1 or 2 people would be providing for the entire society because they would all be related....see, this is my point, just because Jesus would have been "responsible" for making sure everyone was cared for doesn't mean He would have been the sole bread winner for all the adult children in His family, as well as His parents, grandparents, etc. Even siblings, eventually grew up and became contributing members of society...as Mary and Joseph would have been contributing members for as long as they could have been....your whole argument (at least according to your posts) is based on the concept that Jesus had to be wealthy because He was responsible for the needs of His entire family....problem is, that would mean that society comes to a halt....while Mary and Joseph could contribute, they would, as would adult children whether or not they were first born. They would, just as society does today, establish their own households, with thier own adult children, etc. which basically means, your reading tooo much into the culture of the time...where Jesus would have indeed inherited, and would have indeed been responsible for making sure His family was cared for, He would not have been the sole bread winner for the entire family. In fact, the family would have grown up, established their own homes, their own families. Again, the problem I have with your posts is that you read tooooooooooooo much into things, and unfortunately that includes but is not limited to my very own posts.

Jesus was the FIRST-Born son of Joseph/Mary...and there were certain realities that fell with that.

Click to expand...

never debated...

For the first-born son often grew up with the expectation that he would work with his father and share the responsibility of providing for the family, and he was often designated as the person who would inherit the farm or business. In most cases, he was groomed to assume this role and given heavy responsibilities to help manage the family affairs. Depending on his age at the time of his father's death, he was usually the person who took over, settled the estate, cared for his mother and other siblings, and performed other functions. Widows were often considered incapable of providing for their children, and the custody of the children was often awarded to guardians—including older male siblings. An eldest son may have been named guardian or trustee of one or more of his younger siblings.

Click to expand...

never debated....

While many fathers provided for their sons, the second- and third-born sons often lived in the shadow of one or more older brothers. Unless the father was a man of some means, younger sons' right of inheritance was usually diminished either by his family or by law. If he inherited at all, it was usually a bequest of lesser value or of inferior quality than that of his older brother. If the sons were inadequate for handling affairs, that made the situation even more hairy to deal with. And it's the main reasons behind why Jesus blessed his mother with John before He died---for as the FIRST-Born, making certain others were cared for came upon HIS shoulders and not the rest of the family.

Click to expand...

never debated...

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54146465 said:

What I said, in context, is that you are not the only one on "Christian Forums" to hold to the view or express the thought.

Click to expand...

Again, for you to say such as you just did and fail to realize that you do that which act as if everyone BUT YOU do is inconsistent.

Click to expand...

For if there is agreement more so than disagreement, than it would be wisdom to express that clearly by saying where you disagree and where you agree rather than writing counter to what another says or ignoring what they already said you agree with.

Click to expand...

Again, already explained that above. And on the issue, many families in Jewish culture had it where many members in the family did not pull their weight around---either in choosing to work or working and yet living lifestyles that were not productive ones (as well as having it where if the father died and it was the eldest who was to inherit the family portion/responsibility---with examples being Genesis 27:18-20 / Genesis 27 and Genesis 49:2-4 Genesis 49, as it was with Rueben, who was to be preeminent and have special standing with the family but lost it due to bad behavior). For again, it's odd to be continually to show as if it was beyond reason to say the same happened in the time of Christ within his own family.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54146530 said:

as I never said that I did not think Peter and others were not businessmen. If you cannot see the difference in what I said between them not always being businessmen and then later being such at the time they met Christ, then you need to do better concerning comprehension.

Click to expand...

No one dissagrees with that--though on the same token, it's foolish to discuss "assumptions on text" when the reality is that the text explains what happened.

Click to expand...

That's a basic rule of hermenutics, Bruh---as the IMMEDIATE context gives meaning to what was said.

Click to expand...

And if someone asks Jesus in the scripture "Where are you staying, Lord", then is silly to act as if the text was not clear as to whether or not the disciples did not know where he'd be at

Click to expand...

...or whether or not Christ at times was uncertain as to what he'd do

Click to expand...

---as if God could not change his mind or have times where he did not know what would be up. It has happened before, just as what went down later after the incident with Andrew/the other disciple when Jesus was asked to go to the feast and he

Click to expand...

For someone who claims to be above reproach on the issue of communication here, you don't have a clue what is being said, as is evidenced by how many things you are presenting as problems that were never problems or even questioned....

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

okay, I'm gonna have to go soon, hopefully when I come back you will be making more sense in accord to what I am actually saying....but for now, I'll address this post and then move on....
.

Click to expand...

You said that Jesus, as being the son of a carpenter would have been a carpenter, of which I have no objection, however, I will add that Jesus saw Himself not as the son of a carpenter but rather the son of God whose business was clearly not that of carpenter but of people.
Now how does all that relate....very simply....where He would most probably be a carpenter, His business, His job, His profession, His purpose, was not that of carpenter but rather of people and we cannot confuse or miss that point of Jesus ministry, or we miss the whole purpose of His coming.

Click to expand...

.........I never suggested nor do I believe that these men were not businessmen nor have I ever suggested nor believe that they were not profitable at least on some level, all I said is that they left their businesses to follow Jesus and that would have left at least their part of the businesses (depends on who all was part of that business) in shambles.

Click to expand...

Any businessman who leaves the business for a season, sees his business fall, it's just the way business works

Click to expand...

...to question this statement of mine is like the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen and to question it based on culture and history is laughable.

Click to expand...

...In context, all I said is that for them to leave thier businesses behind, would have been extremely harmful to the business,

Click to expand...

okay, still confused as to what you aren't reading in my words???? what do you think I said so that I can correct your assumptions..

Click to expand...

.. as to the issue of a big player, you accused me of not understanding the culture, do you know anything about who owned slaves at the time? How about employees? Might be helpful for you to refresh this in your mind.

Click to expand...

okay...now I asked you this before and you didn't answer but said something later that I assumed you were clarifying, so how about this time you just answer up front, plan and simple so there is no confusion

Click to expand...

....do you really think that the disciples only followed Jesus for 3 days?

Click to expand...

Not a clue what you are trying to say here... It doesn't say that Mary and Joseph didn't build up their business again either,

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

nor does it say that Jesus was well off in His carpentry business, it doesn't even say Jesus had a carpentry business, which is where the double standard comes in...

Click to expand...

Incorrect--

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.
Mark 6:2-4 Mark 6​

Again, you'd have to be willfully avoiding what the text makes clear to support the points you're trying to defend---as it is clear Jesus was well known as being in the business of a carpenter. For additional commentary on the text, the latter comment may hint that Jesus was rumored to be an illegtimate child...for Joseph must have had at least four sons, among whom were James (Acts 12:17, Galatians 1:19 and 2:9-12, etc) and Judas (also known as Jude) as well as 2 daughters. But it is clear the people knew the man was a carpenter and not just the son of one.

.in context this part is referring to Jesus and not all the disciples as to where they start...where they end, context shows that all I am saying is that the business would be in great loss if the disciples were leaving the business for long stretches of time....if Mary and Joseph leaving their business for a stretch of time left them in poverty, the disciples leaving their businesses for a stretch of time would certainly severely deplete their resources....which is what I said when put into context.

Click to expand...

Again, as the point you're making was not missed, the issue is that your point does not have logical basis.


For if one group is on a certain economical level (with little support/working low wage at the time and with little "cushion" room for leaving, if living from pay-check to pay check when struggling)) while another is on a much higher level (as in living middle class and above, with wealthy family connections and able to take off time since they stocked up and have others to back them up), it is logical to see how one taking time off will not have the same effects as another.

It's the entire difference between someone trying to start a business while working mininum wage (and barely able to make a LIVING wage) as we discuss in Human Services often---with their savings always depleted due to emergency situations or barely having little to get by with since it's depleted (i.e. kid needs to go to the doctor, buying food, etc). Their savings that they may have will always be depleted quickly--and hence, they can afford LITTLE time off since it will always impact them negatively. Saw it in action all the time in street ministry. Another couple, however, may come from a Middle-Class Background/Above where they were able to continuously save up for emergency funds, college funds and other things many do not have the ability or time to do since they have significantly fewer "pressures' to deal with when it comes to immediate needs. If they need to take time off of a job for an extended season, they have more cushion under them and can take it better.

Any credible person doing street/Urban Ministry will see this reality often.

A actually I was here very early on, but didn't post because someone was determined to silence me rather than deal with the questions they knew were coming...but hey, that would mean you have to have your facts straight rather than to just make assumptions....of which you apparently are not fond of doing....

Got to go for now...have fun.

Click to expand...

Again, as people in Highschool have done better at dealing with info as it is (as opposed to avoiding the issue), when you want to have reasonable dialouge, it may behoove you to sit down/think and actually deal with information before responding.

razzelflabben said:

you asked me to evidence that like in our culture it could mean country, region, city, etc. of which I did, now your changing your request and blaming me for the problem with
communication...
.the word home could mean any number of specifics both in our culture as well as in theirs. C

Click to expand...

Again, as you have not even come close to quoting me---word for word--what I asked for, you're not paying attention. And I already quoted earlier the context of what I stated, as when it came to the scriptures I was discussing, I made clear that phrases such as "Jesus entered the house" could not mean "home country" as "home" can mean in our sense today. And as I made clear, I asked what the translation was in the context "house" was used in those following scriptures. If you're going to ignore that, you're not showing any level of reasonable discussion.

Check mate.

Click to expand...

Again, more evidence that you're arguing for it's own sake---as if this were some sort of "chess game" one's trying to win rather than actually have reasonable dialouge.

wow, you must have been in a different discussion because all I said is that it was immprobable that Jesus owned the house based on the text.

Click to expand...

And again, you've yet to give credible evidence---either in scholarly work/review or context, that he did not own the house...as it has been consistently the case that any other view is dismissed except the one you're already predisposed to (i.e. "Jesus could never have owned a home", which is without scriptural basis). At best, the view is one among many---but it not the one that is the most likely view

You said earlier at one point that it seemed that where I was coming from did not seem clear to you---and though I've tried to reexplain it multiple times, it seems that there is still not success (though with others its understandable). In the event that I'm saying it the wrong way, for some other sources to consider investigating that may have said it better:

• Did Jesus own a home?

• Did Jesus Christ Own A House? « Break Through To God

Both are EXCELLENT articles that deal with the issue. And of course (On a tangent), as it relates to the issue of the disciples leaving all they had behind to follow Jesus, there's another solid article on the issue dealing with how Jesus did not ask his followers to do something that He himself was not willing to do also. As said best here in Daily Bible Study - Did Jesus Own A Home?:

People have debated for centuries about whether Jesus of Nazareth owned a house. The "of Nazareth" by which He was known is an answer, up to the time that He left Nazareth. It was customary for sons and daughters to remain in their parents' home until marriage. Jesus never married, so He would have remained in the house of Joseph and Mary in Nazareth - particularly since, as was also customary for the firstborn son, he would have had the right and responsibility of inheriting the home and carrying on the family business that was operated from it:

"13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son?" (Matthew 13:55 KJV) "6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?" (Mark 6:3 KJV).
​

But the Messiah left Nazareth when His ministry began because the people there became so enraged at the Truth that they tried to kill Him.

"4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." (Luke 4:16 KJV) "4:28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. 4:30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way, 4:31 And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the sabbath days." (Luke 4:28-31 KJV)
​

"The birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head"

In leaving Nazareth, Jesus gave up all that He owned by law and custom - His home and business. His later teaching "every one that hath forsaken houses" was something that He actually did Himself. He didn't just say it; He felt the pain of it.

"19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." (Matthew 19:29 KJV)​

What about in Capernaum? As a well-known working tradesman, He had the financial means to purchase a home - and/or even build it Himself because He obviously had the tools and skills to do so. But He had now entered the time of His life's purpose. His ministry had just begun and His sacrifice was surely soon to follow. Perhaps the greatest logical proof that He didn't build or purchase a house (rather than rent one) was because He would soon be dead - there was no time left, for Him, for worldly homes. That is the basis of another of His most well-known teachings.

"10:11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 10:12 And when ye come into an house, salute it. 10:13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." (Matthew 10:11-14 KJV)​

I never said it meant home country, so that is one more thing we agree on....I said that home and house could be two different things, and that was after you accused me falsely I might add of saying that Jesus could not own a house.

Click to expand...

Again, you're not paying attention to what was said clearly by myself when I brought up the issue of "house" and how a Jewish person would have understood it.

razzelflabben said:

which view? which thought? You still show no understanding of what I really said, what I really think,
so how could you conclude this with any authority since you still don't know what I am saying?

Click to expand...

Again, as has been the case when you came after my FIRST post, you fail to do what you claim of others---as you started out without actually dealing with what I was saying and still refuse to deal with it. And as it is, you seem bent on trying to prove a point.

inconsistency of my points is only questioned by those that deem anyone not in the amen corner of being wrong.

In fact, consistency is one of the things that most people find irritating about my arguments...that is, everyone but those that love the amen corners... that is exactly what I have been doing but you insist on reading into it what is not there,

Click to expand...

Wrong---as inconsistency is inconsistency..and if choosing to believe that those saying "You're inconsistent" with you do so because you don't "amen" them, sad. For there's no need to flatter oneself that much---no more than one assuming others are against them for "loving truth" because another points out the inconsistency in their believing that Jesus was "white" or that he could never have owned any kind of good clothing. not everyone who disagrees with you.

As it is, most people have often made clear how your arguments are not consistent--with many valid points for why so. And most of the time, being bent on not listening to others since you came in determined to see only what you wanted while ignoring the rest and then playing the "victim" if people do not care to keep engaging you, that's something I pity for you.

By that logic, everyone on CHristian Forums who's ever disagreed with you has always been in the "wrong" and you the one always in the right"

so I do what you want, you don't accept it (in fact, you have dismissed the corrections to insist I said something I did not),and still you accuse me of needing to correct your misinterpretations of my words....seems odd that I would correct you, you would tell me to correct your misunderstanding, I correct you again, you ignore the correction, tell me to correct any misunderstanding, I correct you again, you ignore again, etc. and still it is my problem.... ????? I don't understand your conclusion, but the rest was never in debate...

Click to expand...

Again,

When you're ready to have a reasonable discussion/deal with what I said in context---and do what you say others need to do--then perhaps it'd be best for you to have this discussion. As it is currently, it is an exercise in futility.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

Click to expand...

Again, Godbless.

if we are reading past each other, why am I the only one who needs to slow down,

Click to expand...

As you're the one coming after my postings (As I wasn't even addressing you) and when I give responses as plainly as I can, you find a way to either twist what I was saying clearly or ignore it/then ask for more "clarification". Others I've had the same kind of discussions with and they got it rather quickly.

the grown adult children just let the older brother do everything? How does that even function in a society?

Click to expand...

Again, unless you're going to deal with the Jewish culture on it's OWN terms, it makes no difference in raising question of "THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE"---as it is what it is. Deal with it and what actually went down in Jewish culture, Bruh.

Eventually, only 1 or 2 people would be providing for the entire society because they would all be related....see, this is my point, just because Jesus would have been "responsible" for making sure everyone was cared for doesn't mean He would have been the sole bread winner for all the adult children in His family, as well as His parents, grandparents, etc.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter---as whether or not He had others capable of being the sole bread winner does not mean that they chose to do so---and you're going off the assumption that they were bread winners. As it is, CHrist did not even entrust his own mother to their care....and that is something many scholars have discussed when it comes to the probable state of affairs with them since they did not believe in Him (except James much later, as well as Jude) and were not able to care for her responsibly.

Even siblings, eventually grew up and became contributing members of society...as Mary and Joseph would have been contributing members for as long as they could have been....your whole argument (at least according to your posts) is based on the concept that Jesus had to be wealthy because He was responsible for the needs of His entire family.

Click to expand...

Incorrect--as the entire post (as you keep ignoring) is that Jesus was a hard worker who knew how to TAKE CARE of his family/had to be since he was the eldest-----and with Joseph being long gone and the threat of his mother being a widow was real, He took care of business.


.

..problem is, that would mean that society comes to a halt

Click to expand...

No it doesnt--and again, you're not dealing with how it actually was within Jewish culture, Bruh...but keep arguing based on how you think it'd be

Society functioned JUST fine with the eldest taking care of the families---and as widows were a big deal, that's why God had such a big deal about it in the scriptures and laws to protect them, as well as instructions for how family members were to handle it...especially the Firstborn.

....while Mary and Joseph could contribute, they would, as would adult children whether or not they were first born. They would, just as society does today, establish their own households, with thier own adult children, etc. which basically means, your reading tooo much into the culture of the time.

Click to expand...

Again, where in scripture (and for that matter, examples in Jewish culture) can you show such? For all you've done is assert without evidence...or actually dealing with the scriptures on the matter

No one argues against Joseph/Mary contributing---but as Joseph would have reached a point where he would have been infirm, it was upon the children (especially the FIRSTBORN) to take care of him. And when he was gone, the mother HAD TO BE TAKEN care of. It was apart of the code of honoring Father and Mother

..where Jesus would have indeed inherited, and would have indeed been responsible for making sure His family was cared for, He would not have been the sole bread winner for the entire family.

Click to expand...

Again, being the sole bread winner has nothing to do with others having to win bread who may not be productive..or the fact that Jesus would have been a hard worker/building wealth and trying to make sure his own were cared for.

In fact, the family would have grown up, established their own homes, their own families.

Click to expand...

Unless, of course, others were either UNABLE to (as with very young children or others not at the age of working..or infirm).

Again, the problem I have with your posts is that you read tooooooooooooo much into things, and unfortunately that includes but is not limited to my very own posts. never debated... never debated.... never debated...

Click to expand...

And again, as you're speaking without even addressing the culture or context of the scriptures while making your own assertions based on how you see it, you're not really dealing with the Word as it is. And I've yet to see any Jewish person even come close to saying it would have been improbable for Jesus to own a house---or, for that matter, that others in the family having to work jobs/contribute meant in Jewish culture that all members did so all the time..or that it was never the case that some did not carry their weight around..or that, even in making income, qualified spiritually to take care of others (since they may have worked and been lazy/squandered their finances and therefore been untrustworthy to aid the family)

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54146692 said:

Again, you can deal with the issue however you'd like. But as it is, you've not dealt properly at all with what I've said---and either ignore what I say or read into it/ask me to respond. As long as you're not seeking to pay proper attention and what I was ORIGINALLY saying to another before you ever responded to any of my postings (As you came after me, Bruh), there's no pur[pse for more discussion.

For it seems you're arguing just to argue/trying to make a point rather than acknowledge what others are saying. You can do that elsewhere with others, but I'd prefer not to afterward.

Click to expand...

Again, you have no scriptural basis for saying that He did not see his profession as a matter of aiding others.

Click to expand...

This is what was discussed earlier when bringing up the SYMBOLISM behind his being a carpenter (which you dismissed and DID NOT address)/the work that would be involved concerning aiding people and walking in love. Being a Carpenter is not DIVORCED from being the SON OF God or being about the Work of the Father. And the Work of a Carpenter was seen all throughout His very life in all that He did...concerning His Purpose

Click to expand...

That is an assumption on the text and not dealing with the culture of being a Fishermen--

Click to expand...

especially if being from a well-off family (or, for that matter, having a rich profession one built up income from as did most in the day like Tax-Collectors).

Click to expand...

If a businessman entrusts his business to others who can run it well and do good with it, it is not in shambles when they return to it

Click to expand...

---which is what the disciples did exactly after Christ had died.
Again, you do not have any practical evidence of such---and in the world of ecomomics, this is a basic principle that most avoid----if done with PROPER PLANNING, one can afford to leave a business for a season and come back with it still in tact/able to operate functionally well.

Click to expand...

If you want, I will go back and bring up a collective list of business endeavors that have done just this (concerning the workers IN THEM who do such ALL THE TIME)---as they'd laugh off the notion that just because you walk away for a time/season means that one's destined to have a business crumble.

Click to expand...

And again, as you've not given any examples---or dealt with other EXAMPLES of businesses contradicting your logic of business endeavors failing just because others took a break, you're acting childish. Better (and more intelligent thought) has been seen in High School.

Click to expand...

Again, as I already took the time to answer and you still could not get it, it's a waste of timeAgain, more evidence that you're not paying proper attention and it's a waste of time trying to deal with you---as I never said the disciples only followed Jesus for 3 days. I said that within 3 days (i.e. after Jesus died), the disciples were able to return to their business that they left---as seen in John 21:1 when they were fishing as before. For the sons of Zebedee were "partners with Simon" in fishing prior to being called by Jesus in Luke 5:10. And they were doing work as fishermen do, as night was the preferred time of day for fishing in ancient times---as Luke 5:5 also shows when they were also working all night to catch..since fish caught during the night could be sold fresh in the morning.

Click to expand...

nAgain, as seen in the text, as Joseph was poor/unable to afford above what a poor individual could get (even though carpenters could usually get more ), it's the most likely view. And again, most credible scholars agree on the issue. If you know of any who disagree, please bring them up ANy time.
Incorrect, Bruh--

Click to expand...

Again, you'd have to be willfully avoiding what the text makes clear to support the points you're trying to defend---as it is clear Jesus was well known as being in the business of a carpenter.

Click to expand...

For additional commentary on the text, the latter comment may hint that Jesus was rumored to be an illegtimate child...for Joseph must have had at least four sons, among whom were James (Acts 12:17, Galatians 1:19 and 2:9-12, etc) and Judas (also known as Jude) as well as 2 daughters. But it is clear the people knew the man was a carpenter and not just the son of one.
Again, as the point you're making was not missed, the issue is that your point does not have logical basis.

Click to expand...

For if one group is on a certain economical level (with little support/working low wage at the time and with little "cushion" room for leaving, if living from pay-check to pay check when struggling)) while another is on a much higher level (as in living middle class and above, with wealthy family connections and able to take off time since they stocked up and have others to back them up), it is logical to see how one taking time off will not have the same effects as another.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54146753 said:

Again, as you have not even come close to quoting me---word for word--what I asked for, you're not paying attention. And I already quoted earlier the context of what I stated, as when it came to the scriptures I was discussing, I made clear that phrases such as "Jesus entered the house" could not mean "home country" as "home" can mean in our sense today.

Click to expand...

never in debate...

Again, more evidence that you're arguing for it's own sake---as if this were some sort of "chess game" one's trying to win rather than actually have reasonable dialouge.

Click to expand...

I'm ignoring the things that are flaming and/or totally off the topic from what I said...if you don't like that, I'm not sure what to tell you....

And again, you've yet to give credible evidence---either in scholarly work/review or context, that he did not own the house

Click to expand...

I showed you why it is illogical for Him to have owned the house....why do I need scholars to use logic?

...as it has been consistently the case that any other view is dismissed except the one you're already predisposed to (i.e. "Jesus could never have owned a home",

Click to expand...

you keep saying this like I said it...what I said is that He could own a house, but that in this story it is improbable that He owned the house if we are to believe the assumptions you are making...in other words, if we look logically at your assumptions, the text does not support your theory.

which is without scriptural basis).

Click to expand...

I agree, your theory is without scriptureal basis...

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

awesome, so I show you where your assumptions fall short and I am not listening to you..

Click to expand...

The only thing that were "assumptions" are the conclusions you tried to draw from what I was saying...most of it woefully off. As it is, you've not show any sign of reading fully what it is I'm for/where I was coming from. And as it seems, if someone comes along and tries to simplify the discussion to something it was not and then react, they're doing the logical fallacy of Appeal to ridicule, also called appeal to mockery, the Horse Laugh, reductio ad ridiculum (Latin: "reduction to the ridiculous")....trying to simplify/present an opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous.

If you actually want to have reasonable discussion, deal with what I said. Otherwise, this is seeming to be an exercise in futility.

it's a good thing, because that isn't what I said, and again I challenge you to show the post and quote where I did

Click to expand...

Did earlier---as seen clearly in #233, with me addressing the wording/phrasing you did. And as with nearly all else, when quotation was given, you ignored it. Not going to do it again If you could not/would not address it the first time.

, so that I can take what you are saying as not just more of your flawed assumptions...

Click to expand...

Again, as you've made clear you're not really interested in listening/incapable of paying attention well at this point, I pity you.

I did address it, I showed that from Jesus standpoint, being a carpenter was not the family business, but people where.... Luke 2:49

Click to expand...

Again, incorrect---and sad to see Luke 2:49 even attempted to be used to prove the point you did.

Luke 2:37

The Boy Jesus at the Temple

41Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. 42When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom. 43After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it. 44Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends. 45When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him. 46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.



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.
​

For to wrestle the text of Luke 2 out of context where Jesus says "Don't you know I had to be about my Father's Business" (which you quoted explictly) is without warrant--as the text of Luke 2 was dealing with the parents of Christ looking for Him.

According to the text, Jesus demonstrated wisdom beyond his years---which is not suprising since He stayed close to his Heavenly father. And on the cultural background, according to God's Law, every male was required to go to Jerusalem three times a year for the great festivals (Deuteronomy 16:15-17 Deuteronomy 16 ). In the spring, the Passover was celebrated, immediately by the week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. And at the time of the Passover, the greatest rabbis of the land would assemble to teach/discuss great truths among themselves. The coming of the Messiah would have been a popular discussion topic--as everyone was expecting him soon. And Jesus would have been eager to listen/ask probing questions (as He did).

In line with Mary's question of "Why have you done this to us", Jesus made clear the question was misplaced. AWhen Jesus was 12 years old, it was at the age at which a Jewish boy undergoes his bar-mitzvah ceremony and becomes a "son of the commandment", personally responsible for keeping the Torah given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. At this time, for the first time, he was given an aliyah (call-up) to come to the bimah (lectern) and read from the sefer-Torah (i.e. Torah scroll) in a synagouge service. At the age of 12, Jesus was considered almost an adult, and so he didn't spend a lot of time with his parents during the festival. Those who attended these festivals often traveled in caravans for protection from robbers from the Palestine roads. It was customary for women and children to travel at the front of the caravan, with the men bringing up the rear. A 12 year boy could have been in either group..and both Mary/Joseph assumed Jesus was in either one. But Jesus stayed behind, absorbed in his discussion with the religious leaders. And with that in mind, as upset as Mary was and while Joseph may have been searching for days for the child, they should have known where to look (according to Jesus's response)----especially in light of what had already been revealed to them about their son in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2. Mary was fearful she had not been careful with this God-Given child--yet she could not see the man who was in the temple living out part of what he was meant to do...nor had she learned to let go. His parents didn't understand what He meant about "father's business"--as they didn't realize he was making a distinction between his earthly father and his heavenlly Father----and they knew he was unique but they did not know fully all He was called to do.....since they had to raise him along with his brothers/sisters as a normal child ( Matthew 13:54-56 Matthew 13/ ). Also, what happened there in Luke 2 was a matter of Jesus realizing for the first time that He was God's Son...yet even though He knew he was God's Son, He did not reject his earthly parents/who they were and what they were placed there to teach him. For He went back to Nazareth with them, lived under their authority for another 18yrs and took up the trade of his father (i.e. a carpenter), which was another function of being about the Business of His Father/always doing what His Father wanted him to do at the time. As the oldest in a large family, he assisted Joseph in his carpentry work---with Joseph probably dying during the time he grew up, leaving Jesus to provide for the family. And the normal routines of his daily life gave him a solid understanding of the Judean people whom the Lord called Him to reach out to.

You say you don't like others "reading toooo much into the text"--yet you did JUST that when it came to taking one phrase/building on an entire assumption that was never even apparent. None of what happened when Jesus pointed to being about his "Father's Business" had anything to do with his business as a carpenter later (as that was apart of the calling/role of being on His "Father's Business)---and to try taking the text and making it out as if "father's business" meant as you say it did is not reading in context.


If you're going to deal with scripture, DEAL with scripture. For Luke 2:49 that was dealing simply with the reality of Jesus knowing who His Heavenly Father was---not discounting the profession of his FATHER in the work he did (as Jesus wasn't even in the temple always anyway). We can do better, Bruh.



]

If you do not attend to your business for 3 years,

Click to expand...

Again, show where their business was not attended to---as you've taken the phrase "We've left everything" and assumed they left their former profession in the hole. THAT Has yet to be shown

.remember Mary and Joseph found poverty waiting for them when they did not attend properly to their business

Click to expand...

They were in poverty because they were starting out as a POOR couple.

your reading wealth into the text, which is what I have an issue with,

Click to expand...

And again, you've yet to show such other than assert---despite how the overwhelming view of most scholars is one of Jesus having INCOME..and for that matter, the reality of what TAX-Collectors (who Levi/Matthew was) actually made since there were various levels and generally well-off due to their jobs. No amount of ignoring that will change the reality of how they were of good status...as discussed earlier in #187 when discussing the various levels of tax-collectors/the abilities of those who were able to throw parties.

and what I have spoken of as my issue and what others here have agreed to as well.

Click to expand...

And again, as others have also agreed with people disagreeing with the points you/other people sided on--hence, the entire discussion of the 2 sides saying Jesus was rich/had good status as did many of the disciples and the other saying that he didn't/nor did his followers (even to the point of them not owning homes)----it's moot to bring it up.

nor is it their business, but now, someone elses..

Click to expand...

Again, not really....specifically, if it's a Small/FAMILY business and there are multiple others involved. As it is, it was not as if the Father of James/John went homeless after they left as if the business was dependent on them solely---and with others giving aid on it to support those walking away for a time (as what happens in many ministries).

As suggested earlier, I'd greatly suggest looking into what those in the economic world have actually said on the issue---as on the cutting edge in business today are decentralized organizations that multiply influence...as seen for many studying Fortune 500 Companies and other successful business endeavors that deal with the issue of understanding that entrusting jobs rather than keeping it focused upon key others is part of a good way to run a company. For starters, one can look up the book entitled The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless ... and Amazon.com: The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of ...

how long does it take to build a business to success, make it profitable enough to leave, and so well off that you loose nothing when you leave..? and how long will it take to get your affairs lined up to have the business run...best guess, the disciples were in their late 20's early 30's at the time....if that is the case, then they would have not been as wealthy businessmen as you assume by that time in their bus

iness indeavors....some even speculate they were still teens....The Bible illustration blog: How old were the disciples?
WikiAnswers - How old were the disciples of Jesus Christ during their ministry
and Jesus’ Disciples: A teenage posse? « The Happy Surprise

Click to expand...

No one disagrees with the idea of the disciples (at least, many of them--especially John) were young. The others who most likely were older may have been Matthew, as he was a Roman appointed tax agent. Though that does not logically equate to it being that in Jewish culture, one could not be a successful businessman by their 20's or 30's when men in their 20's and 30's did wonderful things for the Lord many times..and depending on their background, would start out well due to their parents (i.e. inheriting a business/trade from the parents) or wisdom one learns from living life. As it is, boys were seen as boys after age 13 but young men. For there was no “high-school” and during their ages of 16-18 they were young men in their society living life--as the maturing process began much earlier in the first century rather than it is in the 21st century/ westernized culture. They would have had jobs, homes and families to take care of. Logically, if one was considered a man by the age of 13 or 12--and the disciples came to Jesus later in their 20's/30's, one would have a timespan of 18yrs or more (as did Jesus before stepping foot into ministry) to get things rolling in their business...

Of course, there will always be a battle over the issue---as some do not necessarily agree with the view of the disciples being young. In example, one can go to Chuck May's article entitled How Jewish do you have to be to understand the Bible? --where he critiques the view by another in Follow the Rabbi. who says they were young (specifically, the view espoused by Mars Hill---which I actually brought up earlier in the video entitled "Dust of Your Rabbi" by Rob Bell). I'd prefer Vander Laan’s website, “Follow the Rabbi” on many points since its logical in interpreting Scripture through the eyes of first century Judaism and what gives basis for saying the disciples were young...though on the same token, I don't believe all of the disciples had to have been young men when Jesus called them---which is what Chuck May discussed on his part. Both sides are not the final word, of course. But I think it can be a mixture--and with the disciples from the well-to-do families, it could very much be the case that some were older in their endeavors while others were younger but still productive....

And no, I know you were not arguing against such---for I was just speaking out loud on the issue other things connected with the discussion.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by razzelflabben
Seems extremely unlikely that teen boys would have had time to be as profitable in business as would be necessary for them to leave their businesses for 3 years (primarily leave) and not see a loss in profit....in fact, it wasn't until the age of 13 that the boys were even considered to be adult enough to be accountable.

Click to expand...

ee what was really said and yet I show you through your own examples how you are wrong to make these assumptions... I asked you several times to clarify what you intended, as least this is making progress.... ???

Click to expand...

?what exactly do you think I am disagreeing with?????? You are one confusing dude that was never in debate.

Click to expand...

... I never suggested that Jesus was not a carpenter which makes your post sound horribly dishonest.

Click to expand...

.. again, your missing the point, but since I've explained my point many times over and you proclaim to know my view better than I do instead of listening, I don't know what else I could possibly say, especially that would make any sense to you.

Click to expand...

..when all you want to do is assert that you are right and never leave room in your mind to listen to what another has to say

, it's a pretty good bet that you will never understand the point of view of another.

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

never in debate....

Click to expand...

Yet again, that was the point I was making to another. If you agreed with it, you could have simply said "I agree with that"--but as it is, you argued over the point being off. Do not act as if something was never in debate when another making that point to someone else gets their point focused on/told that's not accurate--as it demonstrates you saw what you wanted to see in what I was writing/went from there rather than actually dealing with what I was saying.'

I'm ignoring the things that are flaming and/or totally off the topic from what I said

Click to expand...

And yet, because of that--as it automatically gets defined by you what is or isn't "on topic" rather than actually dealing with what others have said/tried to show why it was on topic (if paying attention), no wonder we have so much of non-reasonable discussion

I showed you why it is illogical for Him to have owned the house....why do I need scholars to use logic?

Click to expand...

Again, I'm sorry---but you did not show where it was illogical for Jesus to have owned the house he was at. It is probable that it could have been either rented--or one belonging to someone in the family whom he was staying with...but it is also probable that he could have owned it as well. And to say, as you did, that it was not possinle for Jesus to have owned the house is without basis. In regards to logic/understanding and TEXTUAL criticism, part of doing such is having sound Biblical Scholarship/others who actually understand the culture or did the research

\

you keep saying this like I said it...what I said is that He could own a house, but that in this story it is improbable that He owned the house if we are to believe the assumptions you are making.
..in other words, if we look logically at your assumptions, the text does not support your theory.

Click to expand...

And again, if studying the text, the reality is that your comments do not make rational sense since the text has no ambiguity on who the house belonged to.

I agree, your theory is without scriptureal basis..

Click to expand...

And again, Godbless.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54146809 said:

Again, unless you're going to deal with the Jewish culture on it's OWN terms, it makes no difference in raising question of "THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE"---as it is what it is. Deal with it and what actually went down in Jewish culture, Bruh.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter---as whether or not He had others capable of being the sole bread winner does not mean that they chose to do so---

Click to expand...

and you're going off the assumption that they were bread winners.

Click to expand...

As it is, CHrist did not even entrust his own mother to their care....

Click to expand...

Society functioned JUST fine with the eldest taking care of the families---and as widows were a big deal, that's why God had such a big deal about it in the scriptures and laws to protect them, as well as instructions for how family members were to handle it...especially the Firstborn.

Click to expand...

Again, where in scripture (and for that matter, examples in Jewish culture) can you show such? For all you've done is assert without evidence...or actually dealing with the scriptures on the matter

Click to expand...

No one argues against Joseph/Mary contributing---but as Joseph would have reached a point where he would have been infirm, it was upon the children (especially the FIRSTBORN) to take care of him. And when he was gone, the mother HAD TO BE TAKEN care of. It was apart of the code of honoring Father and MotherAgain,

Click to expand...

being the sole bread winner has nothing to do with others having to win bread who may not be productive..or the fact that Jesus would have been a hard worker/building wealth and trying to make sure his own were cared for.

Click to expand...

Unless, of course, others were either UNABLE to (as with very young children or others not at the age of working..or infirm). And again, as you're speaking without even addressing the culture or context of the scriptures while making your own assertions based on how you see it, you're not really dealing with the Word as it is.

Click to expand...

And I've yet to see any Jewish person even come close to saying it would have been improbable for Jesus to own a house

Click to expand...

---or, for that matter, that others in the family having to work jobs/contribute meant in Jewish culture that all members did so all the time

Click to expand...

..or that it was never the case that some did not carry their weight around..

Click to expand...

or that, even in making income, qualified spiritually to take care of others

Click to expand...

(since they may have worked and been lazy/squandered their finances and therefore been untrustworthy to aid the family)

Click to expand...