"Silver or gold I do not have"

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...

Easy G (G²);54147047 said:

And none of that has anything to do with whether or not someone starts out well, Bruh

As it is, Age is but a number ---as here are many examples in Scripture of where even young people had godly influence over those older than they. King Josiah immediately comes to my mind, for the kid was eight years old when he began influencing people toward serving the Lord ( II Chronicles 34-35/2 Chronicles 34:20 /2 Kings 22:17 )

Click to expand...

see 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...

razzelflabben said:

I understand it, even wish our culture was a bit more like it, but that doesn't make your points any more right.

Click to expand...

Again, if that were the case, you'd actually deal with it on it's own terms. As it is, you already dismissed half of the things they do to support your points---and when it comes to actually showing Jewish perspectives from it (even Messianic Jewish) or scholarly concern/study on the issue, its avoided.

you don't like the logic that follows the culture of the day..

Click to expand...

As it is, you've not dealt with the logic concerning the culture of the day---and ignore when the culture contradicts your own logic. But be blessed regardless

....based on the idea that all of Jesus family, except of course Jesus Himself, were lazy good for nothings without initiative or purpose in life.

Click to expand...

Never said they were ALL lazy....but that economically, they couldn't be trusted as much. Again, you're not dealing with the text---or the commonly held/reasonable point that his own family was not worthy of being trusted (hence, why he did not ENTRUST his mother to his brothers or sisters)...with income level/stewardship being a big reason then for not entrusting to others just as much as one's spiritual state. If one wants to believe it was solely a matter of their spirituality that Jesus was concerned on, Cool...as it's valid. But no need dismissing those who believe economic level was of significance. It's no different today when taking care of elderly family members and realizing not all willing to take care of them have the means to do so even as they work---and as the FIRST born in a family/most directly responsible, having to account for that.

..personally, I can't buy that story.

Click to expand...

So be it...though even in instances where evidence/text shown otherwise, seems one's for the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief---which is an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false (like saying "I simply cannot believe that they'd ever show love to people---therefore, they don't..and even when they do, it's not REAL!!!").........

.

.we can't make assumptions as to whether or not they were, that few families have that many kids,

Click to expand...

And yet in the OT, many kids were often the norm. And as it stands, Middle Eastern Families are generally larger anyhow (if doing the research).

As it stands, Jews were known for having large families ..a desire to fulfill the Biblical mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"

Jesus asked one of His disciples to care for His mother so therefore all His siblings were lazy?????http://www.eternalgod.org/qapdf/6338

.........my husbands theory is that His siblings were not yet believers and Jesus wanted His mother cared for by a believer, which would also be a theory supported by scripture.

Click to expand...

Discussing the issue of how it was not always the "firstborn" who was blessed or came into prominence (especially as it relates to character/God's choice)--as seen in one of the articles you quoted--- does not deal with the norm in God's Law of how it was generally held that the firstborn would have to be the one who was ultimately responsible for the fate of the family...and the dynamics of why it was key in Christs time that he didn't entrust to his own brothers/sisters---as according to Jewish law, it would have been outlandish for the Lord to have done that if he had other brothers/sisters (unless, as the law showed, they could not be trusted to fufill their duties).




Additionally, I already brought up earlier the reality of how part of Jesus's entrusting his mother to his disciple was due to the fact that his siblings were not believers---and because of that, among other factors, they could be trusted. If you missed that, you again are showing that you're not really paying attention.

. we aren't just talking about the widow, but that seems to keep escaping you..

Click to expand...

Didn't say it was just her...though what was said was that the mother was the one of primary concern. Pay attention, as you're not getting it.

Way, it's as much or more evidence than you presented, just not as long and boring

Click to expand...

As demonstrated in the POINTLESSNESS of claiming to want "discussion" yet having to resort to AD-Hominem/character attacks (as if that deals with an argument).That's your choice, but whether or not you consider it "boring" has nothing to do with actually addressing it reasonably.

improbable that Jesus owned that particular house

Click to expand...

And again, your evidence is seriously LACKING...and this has been discussed before. Regardless, if that's what you wish to believe, so be it..


And in the event that I am not saying accurately what I am trying to convey, as another said best on the issue:

1) Mark 2.1-2: “A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that He had come home. They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and He preached the word to them.”


Now, 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).


Also, in an ancient setting, we know that one’s place of origin was of great importance (e.g. Saul of Tarsus, Jesus of Nazareth, etc.). I would argue that when Mark says that Jesus returned “home” to Capernaum, a literal home is being referred to here, not, say, a hometown. His hometown was not Capernaum but Nazareth. So, home (oikoi) should be taken literally here as a house. Clearly, Mark knows the word “hometown” (patrida) because he uses it in 6.1. If he wanted, he could have just as easily used it here.


It might well be the case too, that, when the men dig through the roof to lower their friend to Jesus, His comment, “Son, your sins are forgiven” is a meant to be humorous as well as a precursor to the forgiveness he will fully experience along with his healing in verses 10-12. More on this comment can be found on Mark Goodacre’s blog: NT Gateway.

2) In the very next scene (2.13-17), Jesus goes out to the lake where Levi is collecting fishery taxes for the Roman government. Jesus walks up to Him and says, “Follow me” (2.14). And, of course, Levi did. The question has been raised, “If Jesus were going to Levi’s home, why would He tell Levi to follow Him? Wouldn’t it make more sense that when Jesus says this, He is taking Levi to His own home?” While this argument is pretty lightweight, its simplicity seems to speak volumes. I agree with it.


Verse 15 is quite ambiguous in the Greek here. The reader can either translate the text as “While Levi was having dinner at the house of Jesus” or (as most translations read) “While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house.” The Greek reads: “en thi oikiai autou” (in/at the house of him). Again, the reader, in light of the context, must decide here whether or not the home being referred to is that of Jesus or Levi. I suggest the former. I think the next episode in Mark’s account helps prove this.


3) Mark 2.18-19: “Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?” Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have Him with them.”


While Jesus uses the metaphor of a wedding here, the analogy might suggest that the while He was having a meal at His home (the same meal from the previous episode), that people approached Him. Perhaps the analogy is not merely eschatological but just appropriate because Jesus is “hosting” people at His home, where they are the “guests.” Further, when you take this scene, of Jesus eating with sinners in His home, in tandem with the previous scene where His roof is ripped off and people are crowding His house and you contrast it with the surrounding scenes of the religious leaders who tended to ban the sick from their houses of worship, you end up with a powerful contrast here. The scene becomes all the more potent if one accepts that the synagogue scene of 3.1-6, where the man with a shriveled hand is healed, was planted there by the religious leaders in an attempt to catch Jesus in a trap. Indeed, in 3.6, after Jesus healed the man, we read, “Then the Pharisees when out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.” Part of their anger was probably due to the fact that their plan to trip Jesus up by planting this man in there backfired. Further, when Jesus walked in and saw this outcast sitting in there, He would have been as shocked as anyone (He knew they didn’t normally let people like this in) and would have immediately realized that something was up.



4) 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. Also, in this episode, Jesus is accused by the religious leaders of being in-league with satan. Jesus responds with a couple of analogies: 1) kingdom divided against kingdom and 2) plundering a strong man’s house.


The analogies would be especially potent if Jesus Himself gave them in His own home. How could His house stand if He were in-league with satan and was at the same time, driving out satan? It couldn’t! Yet, as Mark shows, it is satan’s house that is being divided not Christ’s (e.g. the Jesus Movement is spreading like wildfire all throughout the Mediterranean world; Mk. 3.7-8). Given this, Jesus goes on to say that the “strong man” (= satan) is being bound and plundered by Him—ironically, this is what the religious leaders end up doing to Jesus, which might be another suggestion on Mark’s behalf that they are the one’s working on satan’s behalf. Thus, if Jesus is in His own home at this point, the analogy of Him plundering the strong man’s house works well. Why? Because it is like a play on words where He proves that His house is not the one that needs to be plundered of evil (not least because “sinners” are coming there and being changed and forgiven) but rather the houses of worship and the Empire who are sated with evil. While I acknowledge that this part of my argument is not the strongest and needs tweaked a bit, it may work.


5) Traditionally, the consensus seems to run counter to this whole idea of Jesus having a home. Some have attempted to use Matthew 8.20 and Luke 9.58 as prooftexts to argue against such claims. In those passages, Jesus is recorded as having said, “Foxes have holes and the birds of air have nests but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head.” Yet, this does not mean that Jesus never had a home. Indeed, in the Gospel accounts where this statement is made, it is always after Jesus has left the villages and is on His way to Jerusalem (= the cross). Logically, then, it only follows that Jesus has definitely left His home for good—He’s not going back! These should be taken as narrative markers that reveal the “onward press” of Christ as He makes 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.


Well, those are my thoughts for now. I plan to look into this more in the future. Personally, I love the idea of Jesus opening His home up to the needy; it is a powerful and challenging image. Perhaps it is time to let the stereotype of Jesus as a wandering, homeless, peasant preacher be put to rest. While I would not go as far as James Tabor and argue that Jesus was wealthy, I do see in Mark’s Gospel account, reason to believe that Jesus owned a home that He opened up to people. Let me know what you think.

P-Style,

Just to put the question out there, what if Joseph was around? While this is not the general consensus, it certainly cannot be ruled out. We might speculate for instance, why Jesus used so many "father/son" real-life parables when He spoke? Could it have been because He had a close relationship with Joseph? Also, if you read the infancy accounts closely, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on Joseph; we tend to think that because He isn't mentioned a lot of other places, he was dead or unimportant--that's not necessarily true.

Next, did Jesus as the eldest male of the family (if Joseph were dead), (have to) take care of the family? To this I would say, "Not necessarily." In fact, while this may have been a cultural norm, I would argue that the Synoptic Gospel writers go to great lengths to show that He separated Himself from the customary "household" expectations (see: Mt. 4.13-6; Lk. 4.16-30, 31-32 and Mk. 2.1). Thus, we should probably be careful when applying ancient Jewish “norms” to every ancient Jew or Jewish family, especially as the Gospels portray Jesus as one who shattered many of those expectations. Moreover, you only need to take another look at the story of the Prodigal Son to see that not everyone stuck to the norm!


​

....man dude you need to deal with what is being said and not read into things so much..

Click to expand...

As you have again failed to do what you ask of others, GOd Bless you

Click to expand...

probinson said:

My personal business is not my source. GOD IS. He has blessed me with many talents and abilities that have enabled me to obtain wealth. But He is my Source. He is the reason I am able to do what I do.

As it pertains to this topic, this is where my heart and mind is set; God is my Provider.

Click to expand...

• EX-Cast Episode 24 - Lonnie Brown

• TIME: Inner-City Farms ( //www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1826271,00.html )

• Down On The (Urban) Farm ( //www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/23/sunday/main4628094.shtml )

• Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States ... ( //www.foodsecurity.org/PrimerCFSCUAC.pdf )

• "The urban farmer: One man's crusade to plough up the inner city" ( //www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/the-urban-farmer-one-mans-crusade-to-plough-up-the-inner-city-836358.html )

• "WHY URBAN AGRICULTURE?" ( //www.kccua.org/whyUA.htm )

• [FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]"Resources for city farms" ( //journeytoforever.org/cityfarm_link.html )
  [/FONT]

• Group formed to legalize urban farming in the City of L.A. ( //www.cityfarmer.info/2009/11/08/group-formed-to-legalize-urban-farming-in-the-city-of-l-a/ )

• CNN reports – Solutions – Urban Farms – Urban Communities Growing Fresh Food ( //www.cityfarmer.info/2009/11/25/cnn-reports-solutions-urban-farms-urban-communities-growing-fresh-food/ )

Jedi.Kep said:

He was not in possession of money at the time of the question.

Which has two possibilities.

a. He was poverty stricken.
b. He had no money on him at that moment

No use speculating on why.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54146692 said:

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

Click to expand...

And on that point, it has yet to be proven that their part of the business was in shambles. That is an assumption on the text and not dealing with the culture of being a Fishermen--especially if being from a well-off family like James/John were (or, for that matter, having a rich profession one built up income from as did most in the day like Tax-Collectors). 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---which is what the disciples did exactly after Christ had died.

Click to expand...

And concerning your view (on business being in shambles), Brought it up before in #209 when discussing my work in the Inner-City/Urban settings...and how people are often unaware of how when Jesus aaffected the entire economical system--including those that often oppressed others, as there I brought up the article entitled Nazareth's rebellious son: deviance and downward mobility in the Galilean Jesus movement.-----which deals with the reality of the view that others have more in line with you........specifically, that the loss of the disciples from their business ended up crushing their families still in business/trades

Click to expand...

that were in and going down into downward mobility and shame. The author of that research article referenced the work of another called K.C. Hanson, who has written of the economic and social systems that typified the Galilean fishing culture...and who disagrees with those claiming Galilean fishermen were “middle class.” since, according to Hanson, the system of taxes, licenses, and tribute would have kept them at a subsistence level..as seen in his work entitled “The Galilean Fishing Economy and the Jesus Tradition,”

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. 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...

On the issue of them leaving their business to go after Christ, of course it is established that they had to drop their trades/primary means of income to go after Jesus----as that's the ultimate reality of the text..leaving everything to go after the Lord. And for a better perspective on the issue, as seen here:
#10. The Call of Peter, James, and John (Luke 5:1-11) -- JesusWalk

On the issue of the reality of how business can survive when leaving it to others, 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 ...

Click to expand...

And again, as you've yet to show they ended up in shambles has yet to be proven

Click to expand...

On a side note, something else to consider is the reality that if their businesses were not in shambles, then it's even more powerful to see the lessons they learned from Jesus/how through faith in Him were they truly prosperous in all ways.....for when Peter said "I'm going fishing...", he was going back to his old way of life---with it being possible for him to do so/pick up the same job he had before. And yet he was completely unaware of what Jesus' comission meant. The others followed his example and went with him...and the result of this self-rather than God-determined activity was that they didn't catch anything......but when they allowed the Messiah to determine what they should do, they caught a netful. That lines up perfectly with the points you have been saying/were saying (which I acknowledged earlier)---that only in Christ will we be successful/truly prosperous...and one should not look to their trade SOLELY for what should only be found in the Lord.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54146753 said:

Noticed that not a single thing in your post related to what I actually said....

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54147017 said:

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.

Click to expand...

remind me again which misunderstanding this is suppose to be supporting, there are a lot of things in #233

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.

Click to expand...

see, another case of you reading what is not there, my point and I made it clearly several times had nothing to do with Jesus being a carpenter....and yet, you are trying so hard to make it that.

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.

Click to expand...

Which Dude was the point from the very get go and was clearly stated repeatedly.

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.

Click to expand...

and yet my point, leaves us somewhere in between the two extremes...

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

I said that He saw His profession as people, not carpenter and here you say I have no scriptural basis for saying just the opposite of what I said.....??????? And I'm the one who wants to argue and not listen?????

Click to expand...

Again, if you cannot recognize the error in claiming that his profession as a carpenter was also connected/apart of his ministry toward people, then that's sad.

I said, that Jesus saw Himself not as the son of a carpenter,
but rather as the son of God, which in the culture would mean that Jesus saw His profession as that of people, not carpentry to which you reply...."you have no scriptural basis for saying that He did not see his profession as a matter of aiding others." so again I wonder what purpose you think it serves to try and argue what you do not understand?

Click to expand...

Incorrect----and no need being dense on the matter, as He knew who his Heaveny Father was but also acknowledged his earthly father/the role that Joseph carried. Hence, why he also submitted to the trade Joseph had while growing up (since it involved many principles/symbolism of the things he'd do among people---as well as giving him understanding of Judean people/knowing how to relate) and obeyed his parents. And being a carpenter was not counter to having a profession with people since 1.) you actually worked WITH people and 2.) what you learned there would be used to minister to people later on when traveling in ministry.

Carpentry is not exclusive from people---as one can be there and still be about PEOPLE/Ministering to them. At best, one can say carpentry was not the full dynamic of His work with people (hence, why he left it behind after his season in it was done...even though he did the job faithfully/saw it as ministry to others when he was there, just as any Jewish boy in a trade would have done when doing work)

If you aren't willing to read what I actually said, how can I effectively communicate with you

Click to expand...

When you actually read what I say/deal with it properly and stop complaining on it

....at least now we know why communicate isn't forwarding...thanks for that at least. Because of this lack of consideration for what I am actually typing, I will be ignoring even more than I once did, assuming your purpose is to flame me into an emotional response rather than to respond to anything I am actually saying....In fact, I will only respond from now on to something that even resembles an effort on your part to understand what I have or am saying, should cut down the length of post considerably.

Click to expand...

Whatever you wish to do....


Though again, as evidenced in the inability to deal fully with what one says----while only choosing to deal with what one wishes to deal with and ignoring the entire way through (As I suspected when there were about 6 different times you asked for clarification after I had already given it and it was apparent you really were not reading fully)---it's logical as to why you cannot comprehend what is being said.

Proverbs 14:6
The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.​

That's On you, (Proverbs 15:12, Proverbs 9:7-9/ /Proverbs 12:1 /Proverbs 14:6 ). But praying for ya regardless on the issue.


Ultimately, as one is not here for your sake only, its fine....as the average lurker can read for themselves regardless of your ignoring and see what happens when people argue just to argue (As you're doing).

..wow I would love to discuss this more, hopefully you are soon reading what I am saying instead of ignoring it

Click to expand...

Sorry, but in light of the way you've already dealt with most of what I've been writing, its disgenious to claim anything of wanting to discuss more.



....

more reading into what I am saying???? I never mentioned their families economic situation at all....oh how I wish we could talk about this, but you seem bent on not allowing that to happen

Click to expand...

Again, it's a dense mindset to claim their part of the business would be in shambles (i.e. the disciples who followed Jesus) without logically realizing how that would have been detrimental to the families they left behind and who did not travel with them. And hence, why there was discussion on the issue from the jump of how one could leave all behind/have it in shambles and yet simultaneously be able to take care of their familes/ensure they're provided for.

... most businesses loose money for the first 5-7 years of their existance...let's say that accounting for the cultural differences they only lost money for the first 5 years....that would mean that if they were indeed in their teens still (presumption though it may be), they only had 2 years to build the kind of wealth in which they could leave their businesses for 3 years and not loose standard of living for themselves or their parents, grandparents, or grown siblings whom you assume were not contributing...

Click to expand...

But again, culture. In Jewish culture, you would be considered a man by the age of 12/13. That established, by the time they ran into Jesus (if they were indeed in their 20's/30's), they would have had 14 to 17 years to build up.

Also, of course many businesses fail in the early years ...and for more info,

• Why Most Small Businesses Fail Within Their First Year (And How To ... )

• Research on Small Businesses - start-ups, statistics, SBA ...

• What Causes Small Businesses to Fail?

• What Causes Small Businesses to Prosper?

Most business endeavors may loose money for reasons of BAD stewardship/not understanding the times in which they start out business rather than just because of it being the first 4 to 5 years of their business running. For businesses that fail, it could be that the money runs out well before the business has had a chance to properly take off---as it can be extremely expensive setting up a business, including starting up fees, getting stock or products and maybe even hiring staff that can be trusted over time. .Most of the time, it has been the case that small business owners who fail often share a number of characteristics, while those who succeed do so not by luck, brains, or perseverance, but by taking a different approach.

Whether that be not being understaffed---or having contingency plans in case of an emergency/extended leaves of abscenses, or understanding the economy one begins a business in----how one runs a business can determine whether or not it will be successful.

And for more info, would suggest going online and looking up a book on the issue entitled The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and What to Do About It ....

Great Book, as it deals greatly on the issue with solid info on the issue. As said in the book, "Your business is not your life"..and the book goes into exceptional detail on how Business owners tend to get overworked in their business endeavors rather than raising it up to the point that others can take care of it when one's gone. And as it is, there are not many small business owners who work ridiculous hours and are successful. And in making any successful business, one needs to make it work like a franchise system---where others are trained so that anyone can run it in your leave (much like McDonalds) when giving it to others---since too many businesses are often dependent on the owner being there....with it being the case that if you're not there, the business doesn't make any money...and if you're not there for an extended period of time, there's no business when you come back.

Another one to look up, if interested, is CEO of Self: You Are in Charge

​

It's by Herman Cain, who is the CEO/President of T.H.E. New Voice, Inc., a business and leadership consulting company, specializing in keynote speaking,...and who is the former Chairman of Godfather's Pizza, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City and Board of the National Restaurant Association.





Concerning what it took for them to have enough for their loved ones to survive/live on reasonably, if building up reserves of food/connections, that should not be a problem since they'd not need to build up much. Considering what went down with Peter's family (as well as the other fishing families in Capernaum), there are many things to consider since Peter and the men came back often, as Jesus was using Capernaum as his base-of-operations in Galilee. With them being gone so much of the time, as being of the middle class level, they could have rented out the boats to others who took over the business in their absence. And Zebedee, father of Peter's partners, could have easily helped them out. It would have been a small disaster for the man in terms of "profit" if others in the business left--as that would mean less income than before. But nonetheless, it would not have meant a bankrupt business and other dependants (i.e. wife, kids, etc) starving while the disciples seek Jesus.

Even with the miraculous two boatfulls of fish they got before following Christ, that could have tided over the families until the fishermen returned...and in the status of the fishermen, that was explained earlier in #218 . If knowing one's leave of absecene may result in lower profit, a good businessman is prepared to take the risk---as they understand there are times when one must face levels of survival and be willing/prepared to accept...much like small time business owners who live in the lower-upper middle class and have times of stress, being willing to DOWNSIZE and live on less (even if it means moving in with another family for a time or changing the rate they invest in a product if enough hands are not as available to support increase).

Without even cleaning up the tools of their trade, the disciples simply dropped their nets and left with him. Other scriptures reveal that the boats that were used by Simon held many men, so his fishing enterprise was not a small one. There were probably others who would have continued the business for Simon and Andrew, a business they shortly returned to after Jesus' crucifixion. However, without any promises of reward, payment, or support, they immediately followed Jesus offer to "Follow behind me."




Moreover, regarding the lucrative trade of fishing, it was already the case that Simon/Peter and James/John were in an established business with their father (Zebedee), to the point of owning hired hands as that was no small task. For it was not the case that when Jesus came on the scene, they had just started out......and with the father being in the business FAR longer than they, the business would have been established/they would have been in good standing to build from there rather than starting completely from scratch recently and having the dynamic of suffering immense loss such as in a beginning business-----for success can vary depending on the kind of business one is in, as well as be dependent on whether or not a business established has been already connected with a previous one existing before they branched off. Church discussed the issue not too long ago when it came to the issue of Christians in the Business World and many of the mistakes they made...as one can right click here to download this sermon

so what you need to do, with this point of yours is show the evidence that a business that is say 7-10 years old is statistically able to support a large number of people in a lavish lifestyle, without loss after 3 years of the boss disappearing...I'm anxious to see the stats...

Click to expand...

Again, as you've not shown EXAMPLES of businesses loosing money within the first 5 years (or, dealt with/shown examples of those that didn't), and that leaving for a long time means that one's in shambles, you're inconsistent. And I already gave out some info to check out----if you did that much. It was also shown earlier how business back them that were family oriented would not have had SMALL families (especially in that culture)--as well as the status of fishermen in the area depending on what level one was on....as shown in #218

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If that is how you feel. Though Again, as others have gotten discussion fairly quickly/NOT complained since they could catch on quickly where I was coming from on various issues, either they're more intelligent than you are (which I doubt) or they actually wanted to and tried to pay attention rather than argue for its own sake

Click to expand...

Again, as your exact words says..

"It doesn't even say Jesus had a carpentry business.."

Click to expand...

"His business, his JOB, his profession was not that of a carpenter but rather of people..."

Click to expand...

Never did I say you said that He was not a Carpenter---though on the issue, what was made clear was that there's no warrant to saying his ministry in being a carpenter was not connected with his ministry toward people/aiding others..

Click to expand...

which was apart of the FATHER's business. And to try to act as if you never said such when your words are explictly different is senseless).

Click to expand...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2680175/important_symbolism_of_jesus_as_the.html

Again, to say "Jesus was not in the business of being a carpenter" is not something that MOST (if not all) would take as one saying "He was a carpenter"...no more than one saying "He was not in the business of preaching" if I believe he was indeed a preacher.

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

remind me again which misunderstanding this is suppose to be supporting, there are a lot of things in #233 see,

Click to expand...

another case of you reading what is not there, my point and I made it clearly several times had nothing to do with Jesus being a carpenter....and yet, you are trying so hard to make it that.

Click to expand...

Noticed that not a single thing in your post related to what I actually said....

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

if they were teens, it is highly unlikely that they would have inherited the family business as of yet, but rather that they would be working for their still active parents

Click to expand...

There's no basis for the phrase or "concept" of "teens", as said before----but on the issue, they could have asked for their inheritance at any time. And a father, should he think it appropiate, can give his inheritance to his son even when he's still alive. This is a basic reality to Jewish Culture....and again, you're avoiding it to support your points.

One can go no further than the example of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:12---as the younger son didn't wait till his Father's Death to receive his inheritance...and being a young man/unmarried also.........took his inheritance and converted it all into cash, which may have included cattle or land. Of course he squandered his share---but the option of asking for it would have not been excluded.

See, one of the things your missing is that there it is possible that one or more of the disciples could have been "wealthy" it is very unlikely that all of them would have been, which is the point.

Click to expand...

As I never said that ALL of them were wealthy, then its a MOOT point to even bring it up...and again, more evidence that you do not really understand what I was saying from the jump.[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] For what I have said from the jump was that Jesus’ 12 disciples were from all walks of life - fishermen, political activists, tax collectors, common people and uncommon leaders, rich and poor, educated and uneducated. And of the 12, Jesus’ first disciples were Andrew, John, Peter, and James....all in the Business World. Of these four, two sets were brothers: Andrew and Peter, John and James (Matthew and James – the sons of Alphaeus - may have been brothers as well bringing the total number of those who were brothers to 6 – truly, a band of brothers – a family of families). These first four disciples were all fishermen, even in business together. And Zebedee, the father of James and John, would be left with the fishing enterprise along with his servants when his sons followed Jesus (Mark 1:20).[/FONT]

As said in the FIRST POST you came after immediately,

Originally Posted by Easy G (G²) This also connects with the issue mentioned earlier of examining the OCCUPATIONS of the apostles when it came to their financial status. There was actually a wonderful article on the issue--specifically, on examining the nature/make-up of the 12 disciples Christ chose to work with...Matthew 4:18-20 / Matthew 4Matthew 10:1-3 / Matthew 10, Mark 1:16-18 /Mark 1/ Mark 3:12-14 / Mark 3/ Luke 5:27-29 /Luke 5 Luke 6:12-14 / Luke 6 / John 1:44-46 / John 1 (As said best in the article known as "Jesus Chose Small Businessmen" :

It is sometimes interesting to have a look at Jesus' twelve disciples and what type of people he chose to help start the church.

Jesus himself was a tradesman, a carpenter. He knew what hard work was and what it required to help support his family.

Peter, Andrew, James and John were all small family business men. The family business was fishing. They owned their own boats and when Jesus called them they were busy either casting a net into the sea or mending their nets.

Next called was Phillip and Phillip went and found Nathaniel (also know as Bartholomew) and they both followed Jesus. We don't know what jobs they did before following Christ, but it seems Phillip may have known something food and perhaps being in charge of supplying the disciples food as Jesus asked him "where shall we buy bread, that these may eat. Philip estimated that 200 denarii worth of bread would not feed the crowd".

Likewise Judas Iscariot seem to be the groups treasurer and had control of the money box, maybe this was relevant to his prior occupation.

Matthew was a franchisee owner. He happened to own the government franchise on collecting tax - a very profitable business. In fact Matthew was busy collecting tax at his office at the very time Jesus called him.

Other disciples included, Thomas, James - son of Alphaeus, Lebbaeus (Thaddaeus), and Simon the Zealot we aren't given what there occupations were but one thing is clear from this list. Jesus was happy to be around small business owners, home based business owners and tradesman. Jesus was and is a friend of the working man and woman.
​

Good perspective, IMHO---especially for those who're with gifts of adminstration and giving/leadership ( Romans 12:7-9/Romans 12 /1 Corinthians 12:27-29 /1 Corinthians 12 ) involved in Grass-Roots organizations and often made to feel as if what occurred with Christ was not what they deal with. And for more information on the status of the disciples, I'd suggest looking into the thread known as Little faith and little money



Considering the status of one like John, one can go back and consider looking at Mark 1:19-20/Mark 1:23

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.
​

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

..........

​

For Several of Jesus' first disciples were not poor but were self-employed fisherman or, as in this case (James and John), were apart of a family buisness.

For those who were fishermen, for example, people often fail to realize how much of a profitable buisness the fishing industry was in the times Christ lived in...with the Sea of Galilee being a BIG TIME Hot spot for anyone wanting to get work, due to the variety of fish (and thus, diversity in products) one could find. Many were involved in the trade, from the fishermen--who could be day laborers (Mark 1:19-20) to the owners of the fishing boats and the merchants who marketed the fish. The Gospels themselves also attested to a thriving fishing trade ( Matthew 4:16 ).

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....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....

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What was stated was written clearly and understandable---that is, of course, for those actually wanting to understand clearly and who actually READ with comprehension.


Where in any of what I originally said did I (or the article) state that all of the disciples were WEALTHY? ???



Again, as much as you claim others are "reading into your comments", you've been doing such from the jump---and as it stands, this is one more evidence of such and why you're not taken seriously when it comes to the protestations of such since you cannot do counter to what you accuse others of saying.

...if any of them were truly wealthy, it is most likely that it was only one or two, the others would have been meeting their needs or struggling.

Click to expand...

Again, go back and do better research before asserting---as Peter (as well as Andrew) were fishermen.... was Partners with James/John, who were well off. That makes 8 of the 12 in good standing. The others to consider are Levi/Matthew the Tax collector--taking us down to 7 of the disciples..and of course, Judas, who was the keeper of the money bag.

All in total, we have about 6 of the 12 who may have been in a position to not necessarily be "wealthy"--or, for that matter, "well-off" and successful. We do not know who others were like Simon the Zealot..or, for that matter, Thomas and others. But we have evidence of how several of the followers were doing VERY well. And as it relates to the OP---the point of why I brought up what I did was because it was being said that "Peter/John were poor" without actually addressing their backgrounds and where they came from socially when it came to them being in the temple in Acts 2.




On the status of the others, no one knows. But as said earlier, the POINT is that it was not the case that Jesus avoided working with ----or traveling with others who were businessmen. For his group was a mixture of things

There is a huge difference between understanding and agreeing which is something you don't seem to be getting... the text you referred to does not say that Jesus had a caprentry business,

Click to expand...

As I never said agreeing with me is necessary for understanding, another moot point......as there have been others on the board where we have had disagreements--and yet we understood each other/got along well.

On the rest of what you said, more evidence that you are not trying to read the text as it is. For Jesus was known as the CARPENTER===precisiely because that's the Work he Did. Doesn't get any more clearer than when he went home and it was said of him " Isn't this the carpenter? " ( Mark 6:2-4/ Mark 6 ). J

how does that make me not listening to you, or not dealing with the text

Click to expand...

As you seem unable to understand most of what it being said, not surprised you cannot do so here either....

yep, Jesus saw Himself as the son of God not of Joseph, and therefore His profession would have been people not carpentry, at least in His own eyes

Click to expand...

And again, your comment does not deal with the text---and is no more logical than saying Jesus did not see Mary as His "Mother" . But I do not expect you to see the error anytime soon at the rate you seem bent on arguing your point.

.....how hard is that to understand? see, nothing about this entered my comments, posts, argument, assumptions, beliefs and I have shown you that many times over.... then show where I said such....I'm all giddy waiting for you to show me where I said that Jesus being a carpenter could not aid His business of people.....man am I excitedly waiting, I want to see what I typed while I was sleeping...glad I never said otherwise....

Click to expand...

And again,

More evidence that you are arguing to do so for the sake of it. Godbless

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54147047 said:

On the issue of "teen" boys, I must say that its often the case that people assume (based on our culture ) that there were teenagers/others considered such----but back in the day, there was no middle category between child and man. Once you hit 12 or 13, you were considered adult/expected to do as adults did rather than someone "in-between" (i.e. teens)/with less expected of them.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54147073 said:

Continued from before:

1 Chronicles 27:23
David did not take the number of the men twenty years old or less, because the LORD had promised to make Israel as numerous as the stars in the sky.
1 Chronicles 27:22-24 / 1 Chronicles 27 (

2 Chronicles 29:1
[ Hezekiah Purifies the Temple ] Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Abijah daughter of Zechariah.
2 Chronicles 29:1-3 2 Chronicles 29

2 Chronicles 31:17
And they distributed to the priests enrolled by their families in the genealogical records and likewise to the Levites twenty years old or more, according to their responsibilities and their divisions.
2 Chronicles 31:16-18 / 2 Chronicles 31






Ezra 3:8
In the second month of the second year after their arrival at the house of God in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, Jeshua son of Jozadak and the rest of their brothers (the priests and the Levites and all who had returned from the captivity to Jerusalem) began the work, appointing Levites twenty years of age and older to supervise the building of the house of the LORD.
Ezra 3:7-9 (in Context) Ezra 3
​

If ONE was 20yrs or Youger, didn't mean it was an issue for God many times when one was seeking His face...and for many, didn't mean that in their 20's/30s they could not be of good standing. For another example, one can study the example of Jacob who worked his way up (and for quick note, not all of the apostles would have been 20 or 30 since they all came from a myriad of backgrounds)--


Even today, others in their 20's and 30s are doing things others said were possible only for others late in age. See it all the time in the work I do with Youth Ministry. And for anyone wishing more information, look up the movement called "The Rebelution"

One can go to "Boundless.org" , Becoming Men: Feats of our Forefathers , or Addicted to Adultescence to find out more---but it's one of the movements I support in the Lord---run by two young adults and challenging others their ages to do hard things/what others don't expect of them due to how many see them simply as "young"....and it's changing the way many older people view those who're younger, seeing that just because one's older than another doesn't equate to being BEYOND learning from them...or that those younger cannot do what older people do. As one of my Older Brothers in the Lord said on the issue when I brought up the issue of Youth Ministry and one older individual said something akin to "Man, I was doing this before you had diapers"-----my mentor's response was "Just because you've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean you were doing it right".......


As it relates to the disciples, with them being young (some of them), it should not be a problem to imagine that at their ages they would have been able to do things...especially as some of them (Peter, for certain) were already married when Jesus called them out of their trades.
Really, each time it came to examples you tried to show were "wrong", all you did was assert one was "wrongly" assuming---even though the entire issue is that one simply disagreed with where you were coming from and what were reasonable speculations (As well as facts) you did not wish to address fully-----and when it came to counter-arguments, you either you ignored what is said (As you've done with others) and then ask them to give more "clarification"...or acted as if what was said was of not basis. That hardly deals with an argument.

As it is, it does not seem you're really concerned in dealing with info. And it is tiring, to be honest.

If that is how you feel. Though Again, as others have gotten discussion fairly quickly/NOT complained since they could catch on quickly where I was coming from on various issues, either they're more intelligent than you are (which I doubt) or they actually wanted to and tried to pay attention rather than argue for its own sake

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by razzelflabben
. but again, the question isn't can a business survive, or even thrive, look at WalMart that is surviving without Walton, but rather if a business could become that profitable, (not it would be considered a small business, not a corporation) in the length of time they would have had to build that said business..

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

I showed through, logic, business realities,

Click to expand...

What business realities? What CREDIBLE examples? You've done nothing of the sort, either in giving example or reference---yet expect it to be taken seriously...


Again, what you have done is not logic. In example, you have continually stated that most business endeavors fail when the managers are not there---and hence, when it comes to the disciples leaving all to follow Jesus, assume that the disciples must have had their business in shambles as well. However, logic would also mean you would take the time to address the other examples of times where business endeavors had those in management leave and they suceeded---as in the cases where business endeavors were not set up to be dependent on the leader (or, for that matter, set up where those behind could have other manage what others left). Essentially, what you did was the logical fallacy of converse accident (also called reverse accident, destroying the exception or a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter), where exceptions to a generalization are ignored ( like saying "Every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white" )......

That also goes in line with the logical fallacy of accident where people are cool taking knowledge from one group's or person's experiences and incorrectly extending it to all others....such as what happens often in statistics when people take information from a sample group and then assumes that it represents the ENTIRE population and makes a judgement call...and in connection with that, doing things like Hasty generalization where one is content examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case, and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena....or, even when examining the data and seeing the results, doing what many already against something do by choosing the fallacy of slothful induction---where despite strong evidence for a conclusion, people deny the logical conclusion of an inductive argument by dismissing an effect as "just a coincidence" when it is very likely not to be.

and example of what happened to Mary and Joseph, what have you presented as evidence, not just someones opinion....oh way, that is what you think evidence is, opinion.

Click to expand...

Odd is it that only your opinion is taken as "fact"---but when other credible teachers/scholars out there give theres and it is brought up, it's only relying on "opinion".....and doing so, as you've done, is no more different than one who dismisses what one in Seminary says on the cultural significance of a phrase (after doing the research) simply because it disagrees with your view.


Again, if you wish to be taken seriously, you may need to sit down/drop the consistent inconsistency


With Mary and Joseph, they would again have been in poor states after having Jesus (as seen in the offerings they came to give, which wee turtledoves/2 young pigeons and the offerings brought by those of poor/modest means...at least not among the more well-to-do who could afford to offer a lamb-----as seen in Leviticus 5:6-8 / Leviticus 5/Leviticus 12:7-8 Leviticus 12 )---but had time to build back up/get in better position...and with the gifts brought, that had SIGNIFICANT value, it would have come quite in handy.

so if I have a skill, in which I can make a living, I can't restart a business, I can only go back to the one I started first? That just doesn't make any sense, sorry, you aren't using any kind of logic (at least as to what I actually said, as to what you think I said, I can't testify, since I don't know what you think I said)

Click to expand...

Again, I do pray that you grow in ability to listen----as of course no one argues that one with skills in a profitable trade cannot start again. But what is in question is whether or not the business the disciples already had previously had been in shambles....for if it was not in shambles, there would be no need to try starting up another one---especially seeing that they owned their own boat/nets and other things needed for the trade. Again, the disciples were not foolish men--and for more info, one can go to Discipleship: Its People and Process | Bible.org; NET Bible, Bible ...

As mentioned before, of course these men these men (and others) were called by Christ to be His followers. They left their nets and followed him (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20). But it is in no way evident that they left their jobs and spent all their time with Jesus at this time. They may have temporarily taken leave of their work to follow Jesus on a particular campaign. As it is, it would be illogical to think they needed to restart a new one.[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] Peter wanted to go fishing....and [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]previously to the crucifixion of Christ, the temporal necessities of himself and his disciples appear to have been supplied by the charity of individuals since the ministry was akin to a traveling/missionary type where jobs of permanent residence could not sustain them where they were at (as it was with the many fishing companies that lived on the seas where they were at).

[/FONT][/FONT]

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.​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]


As it is probable that the scandal of the cross had now shut up this source of support, the disciples, not fully knowing how they were to be employed, purposed to return to their former occupation of fishing, in order to gain a livelihood....and therefore the seven embarked on the sea of Tiberias, otherwise called the sea of Galilee..the same spot Jesus originally caught them at when He first called them ( [/FONT]Matthew 4:17-19/Matthew 4[FONT=Arial,Helvetica] /[/FONT]Mark 1:15-17/ Mark 1 [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]). [/FONT]John states that Peter decided to return to his home district of Galilee, very likely so he could resume his fishing career. Peter was discouraged and didn’t know what to do after the tragedy of Jesus’ death.......and he went back to his previous career out of despair and uncertainty. Its also logical to assume that all that Peter was proposing was a fishing trip, perhaps out of economic necessity----as before, for their time with Jesus, God had provided. But being back on their own again, they didn't know what to do and they needed to eat. It's the entire dynamic of living by faith for years and seeing the miraculous--only to have it be the case that when one sees an end to that, the option of going back to your former job/business seems more than relevant. There's also the dynamic that they were already told by Jesus to go there/wait for Him, as seen in Matthew 28:9-11 / Matthew 28 /Mark 14:27-29/Mark 14 /Mark 16:6-8 Mark 16 , and waiting there for awhile possibly hoping to see something different but not seeing anything, they decided to go back to living life as normal/before they saw Christ

razzelflabben said:

are you kidding me? teen, between the ages of 13-19, that is what teen means... as to adult status, I stated that when I first brought up ages....

Click to expand...

And again, in Jewish culture, the term "teen" would have been MEANINGLESS .hence, why it is a moot point bringing up the point since you were either a "boy" or a "man" doing a man's work/treated as such

No need being dense on the issue

razzelflabben said:

I'll be thrilled to respond when you show you have any understanding at all of what I said...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You've already made clear that you cannot understand/refuse to do so-----so not expecting you to reasonably respond

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54147112 said:

Again, if that were the case, you'd actually deal with it on it's own terms. As it is, you already dismissed half of the things they do to support your points---and when it comes to actually showing Jewish perspectives from it (even Messianic Jewish) or scholarly concern/study on the issue, its avoided.

As it is, you've not dealt with the logic concerning the culture of the day---and ignore when the culture contradicts your own logic. But be blessed regardless
Never said they were ALL lazy....but that economically, they couldn't be trusted as much. Again, you're not dealing with the text---or the commonly held/reasonable point that his own family was not worthy of being trusted (hence, why he did not ENTRUST his mother to his brothers or sisters)...with income level/stewardship being a big reason then for not entrusting to others just as much as one's spiritual state. If one wants to believe it was solely a matter of their spirituality that Jesus was concerned on, Cool...as it's valid. But no need dismissing those who believe economic level was of significance. It's no different today when taking care of elderly family members and realizing not all willing to take care of them have the means to do so even as they work---and as the FIRST born in a family/most directly responsible, having to account for that.

So be it...though even in instances where evidence/text shown otherwise, seems one's for the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief---which is an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false (like saying "I simply cannot believe that they'd ever show love to people---therefore, they don't..and even when they do, it's not REAL!!!").........

.And yet in the OT, many kids were often the norm. And as it stands, Middle Eastern Families are generally larger anyhow (if doing the research).

As it stands, Jews were known for having large families ..a desire to fulfill the Biblical mandate to "be fruitful and multiply"

Discussing the issue of how it was not always the "firstborn" who was blessed or came into prominence (especially as it relates to character/God's choice)--as seen in one of the articles you quoted--- does not deal with the norm in God's Law of how it was generally held that the firstborn would have to be the one who was ultimately responsible for the fate of the family...and the dynamics of why it was key in Christs time that he didn't entrust to his own brothers/sisters---as according to Jewish law, it would have been outlandish for the Lord to have done that if he had other brothers/sisters (unless, as the law showed, they could not be trusted to fufill their duties).




Additionally, I already brought up earlier the reality of how part of Jesus's entrusting his mother to his disciple was due to the fact that his siblings were not believers---and because of that, among other factors, they could be trusted. If you missed that, you again are showing that you're not really paying attention.

Didn't say it was just her...though what was said was that the mother was the one of primary concern. Pay attention, as you're not getting it.



As demonstrated in the POINTLESSNESS of claiming to want "discussion" yet having to resort to AD-Hominem/character attacks (as if that deals with an argument).That's your choice, but whether or not you consider it "boring" has nothing to do with actually addressing it reasonably.

And again, your evidence is seriously LACKING...and this has been discussed before. Regardless, if that's what you wish to believe, so be it..


And in the event that I am not saying accurately what I am trying to convey, as another said best on the issue:

1) Mark 2.1-2: “A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that He had come home. They gathered in such large numbers that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and He preached the word to them.”


Now, 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).


Also, in an ancient setting, we know that one’s place of origin was of great importance (e.g. Saul of Tarsus, Jesus of Nazareth, etc.). I would argue that when Mark says that Jesus returned “home” to Capernaum, a literal home is being referred to here, not, say, a hometown. His hometown was not Capernaum but Nazareth. So, home (oikoi) should be taken literally here as a house. Clearly, Mark knows the word “hometown” (patrida) because he uses it in 6.1. If he wanted, he could have just as easily used it here.


It might well be the case too, that, when the men dig through the roof to lower their friend to Jesus, His comment, “Son, your sins are forgiven” is a meant to be humorous as well as a precursor to the forgiveness he will fully experience along with his healing in verses 10-12. More on this comment can be found on Mark Goodacre’s blog: NT Gateway.

2) In the very next scene (2.13-17), Jesus goes out to the lake where Levi is collecting fishery taxes for the Roman government. Jesus walks up to Him and says, “Follow me” (2.14). And, of course, Levi did. The question has been raised, “If Jesus were going to Levi’s home, why would He tell Levi to follow Him? Wouldn’t it make more sense that when Jesus says this, He is taking Levi to His own home?” While this argument is pretty lightweight, its simplicity seems to speak volumes. I agree with it.


Verse 15 is quite ambiguous in the Greek here. The reader can either translate the text as “While Levi was having dinner at the house of Jesus” or (as most translations read) “While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house.” The Greek reads: “en thi oikiai autou” (in/at the house of him). Again, the reader, in light of the context, must decide here whether or not the home being referred to is that of Jesus or Levi. I suggest the former. I think the next episode in Mark’s account helps prove this.


3) Mark 2.18-19: “Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?” Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have Him with them.”


While Jesus uses the metaphor of a wedding here, the analogy might suggest that the while He was having a meal at His home (the same meal from the previous episode), that people approached Him. Perhaps the analogy is not merely eschatological but just appropriate because Jesus is “hosting” people at His home, where they are the “guests.” Further, when you take this scene, of Jesus eating with sinners in His home, in tandem with the previous scene where His roof is ripped off and people are crowding His house and you contrast it with the surrounding scenes of the religious leaders who tended to ban the sick from their houses of worship, you end up with a powerful contrast here. The scene becomes all the more potent if one accepts that the synagogue scene of 3.1-6, where the man with a shriveled hand is healed, was planted there by the religious leaders in an attempt to catch Jesus in a trap. Indeed, in 3.6, after Jesus healed the man, we read, “Then the Pharisees when out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.” Part of their anger was probably due to the fact that their plan to trip Jesus up by planting this man in there backfired. Further, when Jesus walked in and saw this outcast sitting in there, He would have been as shocked as anyone (He knew they didn’t normally let people like this in) and would have immediately realized that something was up.



4) 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. Also, in this episode, Jesus is accused by the religious leaders of being in-league with satan. Jesus responds with a couple of analogies: 1) kingdom divided against kingdom and 2) plundering a strong man’s house.


The analogies would be especially potent if Jesus Himself gave them in His own home. How could His house stand if He were in-league with satan and was at the same time, driving out satan? It couldn’t! Yet, as Mark shows, it is satan’s house that is being divided not Christ’s (e.g. the Jesus Movement is spreading like wildfire all throughout the Mediterranean world; Mk. 3.7-8). Given this, Jesus goes on to say that the “strong man” (= satan) is being bound and plundered by Him—ironically, this is what the religious leaders end up doing to Jesus, which might be another suggestion on Mark’s behalf that they are the one’s working on satan’s behalf. Thus, if Jesus is in His own home at this point, the analogy of Him plundering the strong man’s house works well. Why? Because it is like a play on words where He proves that His house is not the one that needs to be plundered of evil (not least because “sinners” are coming there and being changed and forgiven) but rather the houses of worship and the Empire who are sated with evil. While I acknowledge that this part of my argument is not the strongest and needs tweaked a bit, it may work.


5) Traditionally, the consensus seems to run counter to this whole idea of Jesus having a home. Some have attempted to use Matthew 8.20 and Luke 9.58 as prooftexts to argue against such claims. In those passages, Jesus is recorded as having said, “Foxes have holes and the birds of air have nests but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head.” Yet, this does not mean that Jesus never had a home. Indeed, in the Gospel accounts where this statement is made, it is always after Jesus has left the villages and is on His way to Jerusalem (= the cross). Logically, then, it only follows that Jesus has definitely left His home for good—He’s not going back! These should be taken as narrative markers that reveal the “onward press” of Christ as He makes 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.


Well, those are my thoughts for now. I plan to look into this more in the future. Personally, I love the idea of Jesus opening His home up to the needy; it is a powerful and challenging image. Perhaps it is time to let the stereotype of Jesus as a wandering, homeless, peasant preacher be put to rest. While I would not go as far as James Tabor and argue that Jesus was wealthy, I do see in Mark’s Gospel account, reason to believe that Jesus owned a home that He opened up to people. Let me know what you think.

P-Style,

Just to put the question out there, what if Joseph was around? While this is not the general consensus, it certainly cannot be ruled out. We might speculate for instance, why Jesus used so many "father/son" real-life parables when He spoke? Could it have been because He had a close relationship with Joseph? Also, if you read the infancy accounts closely, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on Joseph; we tend to think that because He isn't mentioned a lot of other places, he was dead or unimportant--that's not necessarily true.

Next, did Jesus as the eldest male of the family (if Joseph were dead), (have to) take care of the family? To this I would say, "Not necessarily." In fact, while this may have been a cultural norm, I would argue that the Synoptic Gospel writers go to great lengths to show that He separated Himself from the customary "household" expectations (see: Mt. 4.13-6; Lk. 4.16-30, 31-32 and Mk. 2.1). Thus, we should probably be careful when applying ancient Jewish “norms” to every ancient Jew or Jewish family, especially as the Gospels portray Jesus as one who shattered many of those expectations. Moreover, you only need to take another look at the story of the Prodigal Son to see that not everyone stuck to the norm!


​

As you have again failed to do what you ask of others, GOd Bless you

Click to expand...

when you show some hint of trying to even understand what I am saying, I'll be happy to respond....I can wait with the patience of the HS within for you to deal with what I actually said....

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

when you show some hint of trying to even understand what I am saying, I'll be happy to respond....I can wait with the patience of the HS within for you to deal with what I actually said....

Click to expand...

And again, when you're able to deal properly with what was being said from the jump, then you have room to respond properly. As it is, what's being labeled as "patience of the HS" is more akin to stubborness of an donkey.....which the Word warns about when it comes to being hard-headed/not showing ability to listen properly.

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54156726 said:

Again, if you cannot recognize the error in claiming that his profession as a carpenter was also connected/apart of his ministry toward people, then thats sad.

Click to expand...

I see the difference, but I didn't say that being a carpenter was not helpful ot His ministry of people, that I did say that is a figment of your imagination....

But again, culture. In Jewish culture, you would be considered a man by the age of 12/13. That established, by the time they ran into Jesus (if they were indeed in their 20's/30's), they would have had 14 to 17 years to build up.

Click to expand...

well since I not only brought up the cultural side of this, but agreed several times, I wonder why someone such as yourself would keep bringing it up as if I don't get it, when I am the one who first entered it into discussion???? Ah well....as to the 20's and 30's thing, as I showed you most scholars put most of the disciples in their teens, remember that whole discussion where I had to define teen for you....anyway, we don't know how old the disciples were, but it is logically accurate to assume they were in their teens still, with really brings down the probability of their businesses being as profitable as you are trying to purpose...

Wrong--and again, as you've not shown that most businesses loose money within the first 5 years and that leaving for a long time means that one's in shambles, you're inconsistent.

the actual numbers come from a local business assistant organization in our area, since I don't have a website available with that information on it, here is a place to start....http://www.christianforums.com/t7436770-24/
The information I refer to is a local "incubator" in which professionals help small business people start businesses.

Again, logic please...........as PROFIT is still being made off of a business if its surviving and one can have sustainable income off of it to provide from others. That's what I have said from the jump and you keep avoiding that.

Click to expand...

that still means it has to be the business of the person leaving not of their family or parents....logic would be awesome, want to try some....? Sorry, though that could be taken as flaming, it was not intended to be such, even though it is about all you put in your posts.

Again, do not be dense---as of course one can restart a business if they have a skill that can be profitable. But the reality is dealing with the TEXT and showing where their business (former ones they left---as in the Sons of Zebedee/their partner Simon going back to work with their father in the business he was in) was in ruins. That, on your part has yet to be shown....

Click to expand...

be careful, I never once suggested that Zebedee couldn't keep that business running...you really need to pay attention, that is more of your falacies of what I really did say.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Easy G (G²);54156807 said:

There's no basis for the phrase or "concept" of "teens", as said before----but on the issue, they could have asked for their inheritance at any time. And a father, should he think it appropiate, can give his inheritance to his son even when he's still alive. This is a basic reality to Jewish Culture....and again, you're avoiding it to support your points.

Click to expand...

and yet few fathers give their children inheritance early....so what is the point you intend to make...?

As I never said that ALL of them were wealthy, then its a MOOT point to even bring it up...and again, more evidence that you do not really understand what I was saying from the jump.[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular] For what I have said from the jump was that Jesus’ 12 disciples were from all walks of life - fishermen, political activists, tax collectors, common people and uncommon leaders, rich and poor, educated and uneducated.

Click to expand...

never came into debate....why assume it did?

[/FONT]

On the rest of what you said, more evidence that you are not trying to read the text as it is. For Jesus was known as the CARPENTER===precisiely because that's the Work he Did. Doesn't get any more clearer than when he went home and it was said of him " Isn't this the carpenter? " ( Mark 6:2-4/ Mark 6 ). J

Click to expand...

this was never enterer into debate, why assume it was?

Godbless

Click to expand...

notice that this long post didn't have even one point of disagreement or argument presented as to what I actually did say....

Click to expand...

razzelflabben said:

I see the difference, but I didn't say that being a carpenter was not helpful ot His ministry of people, that I did say that

Click to expand...

And again, you need to work better on your communication skills/listening--as well as making clear on where you're coming from

Well since I not only brought up the cultural side of this, but agreed several times, I wonder why someone such as yourself would keep bringing it up as if I don't get it, when I am the one who first entered it into discussion???? Ah well....as to the 20's and 30's thing, as I showed you most scholars put most of the disciples in their teens, remember that whole discussion where I had to define teen for you....
anyway, we don't know how old the disciples were, but it is logically accurate to assume they were in their teens still, with really brings down the probability of their businesses being as profitable as you are trying to purpose..

Click to expand...

.And again, the "teen"issue is a MOOT point since the bottom line reality is that the disciples would have been considered young men expected to make a living---with it not being impossible for them to do well for themselves in their 20's, as it was not beyond others at the time to do so as well. As it is, you didn't give scholarly research...and it goes nowhere since being in 20's/30's (or younger) would in no way mean one could not have been in a profitable trade. As it is, you've YET to show where in Jewish culture those in that bracket could not have been profitable in their trades/able to plan to take care of themselves.

the actual numbers come from a local business assistant organization in our area, since I don't have a website available with that information on it, here is a place to start....http://www.christianforums.com/t7436770-24/ The information I refer to is a local "incubator" in which professionals help small business people start businesses.

Click to expand...

The link to the place does not go anywhere. Regardless, you've not dealt with the examples I gave out earlier/clearly (either in like or references on business organizations aiding others) nor the numerous other small businesses out there who also AID OTHERS in starting their businesses.

Hence, you want another to consider your information and yet you've not taken the time to come close to investigating their own?

that still means it has to be the business of the person leaving not of their family or parents

Click to expand...

But again, you've YET to show where culturally in Jewish times it was the same dynamic. For even then, as it relates to inheritances, Fathers could be Co-Business Owners with their sons (or having their sons working under them and then later splitting it).
uld be awesome, want to try some....?

Sorry, though that could be taken as flaming, it was not intended to be such, even though it is about all you put in your posts

Click to expand...

Again, if claiming to want reasonable discussion, then you're being far from that in the comments...and its disingenious to complain about "flamming" when you do the same

be careful,

Click to expand...

Follow your own advise first please...

I never once suggested that Zebedee couldn't keep that business running

Click to expand...

And yet when I said such earlier/made that as one of the logical reasons as to why the disciples part of the business would not be in shambles (as they were in PARTNETRSHIP with the man and their loss was also his), you argued tooth/nail over it.

...you really need to pay attention, that is more of your falacies of what I really did say.

Click to expand...

And again, sadly showing yourself more dense and not able to read fully what others say.


And sadly, depending on how obtuse one is, this probably will keep up for another 4 to 5 days concerning the foolishness of what you're doing?

Click to expand...