"Silver or gold I do not have"

[Gxg (G²)]

and yet few fathers give their children inheritance early...w

Again, as it varied from FAMILY to family, it's a moot point. As inheritance and choosing to work early with one was not a rare thing---though it was common to wait until one died to inherit.

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

Again, failure to pay attention----AS WHEN I was originally addressing another poster, it was brought up concerning the realities of how diverse the disciples were in their backgrounds and how not all were necessarily far from being well-off (namely, Peter/Andrew, James/John and Matthew). As seen in the first posting I made in which you came after, you skipped compteletly what was said, and then acted as if it was out of nowhere.

Keep up please

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

And notice again that your responses do not come close to either keeping on topic---or actually dealing with what someone says in context---with it being dismissed because one cannot understand it.


Doesn't do well for good debate--and I do wish you'd humble yourself/realize that rather than playing the martyr

 

[razzelflabben]

1 Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 5:7-9 1 Timothy 5
​

That's what I have said from the jump, though you keep avoiding that.

in relation to this topic, the only thing I have ever said is that Jesus would not have been the only bread winner for His parents, grandparents and grown siblings....if the siblings were still younger than 13, the responsibility would still be that of Joseph....

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---

no, that is not what I said...but that seems to be your MO, keep going, I'll just delete what isn't even close....

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]hummmm....when we remove what you assume I was saying and replace it with what I really did say, nothing you are arguing here has meaning....so who is arguing for the sake of arguing...evidence shows you to be guilty
[/FONT]

 

[razzelflabben]

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

so teen meaning between the ages of 13 and 19 had no meaning in Jewish culture....okay if that is your stand, then the logical argument would be that one year they were 12 and the next year they were 20, what did they do with all the time in between? Remember, I already presented my side of the argument that where they became adults at age 13, teen does not refer to manhood, but rather the years between age 13 and 19...you disagree, you show here that either you refuse to understand what I said, or you don't think in Jewish culture that the ages between 12 and 20 exist....that is to apply logic to your argument as it relates to my comment....if you don't like that, you have an few options 1. you can step back and actually listen to what I am saying, 2. accuse me of saying something different than I did and flame me because you wanted me to say something else (your MO) or 3. admit you were wrong about what I said and move forward in the discussion...hope you choose wisely.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

in relation to this topic, the only thing I have ever said is that Jesus would not have been the only bread winner for His parents, grandparents and grown siblings....if the siblings were still younger than 13, the responsibility would still be that of Joseph.... no, that is not what I said...but that seems to be your MO, keep going, I'll just delete what isn't even close....

Again, prayerfully your listening skills improve with time---as it was argued continuously that the disciples left their business in shambles when they went to follow Jesus----and that was the only thing which was in debate, seeing that it could not be in shambles if they had families to feed. And as it is, you gave no evidence for showing it be the case that the others in the family were all responsible bread-winners/capable of taking care of their widowed mother.

Additionally, as it was not wild for parents to die with having young children, it's silly to assume that Joseph had to be around at the time.

You can be childish if you'd like in ignoring what you don't want to deal with---but it doesn't do well in a debate. And it doesn't change the fact that the average lurker can see the foolishness in what you're doing.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]hummmm....when we remove what you assume I was saying and replace it with what I really did say, nothing you are arguing here has meaning....so who is arguing for the sake of arguing...evidence shows you to be guilty[/FONT]

Again, you can keep this up all week long. Doesn't show your case to be any more valid--or that you actually care to do anything less than arguing for its own sake.

 

[razzelflabben]

.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---

which is what I said this whole time....let's see if you can add something significant to what I already said from the first itme I brought up their ages....

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.

nope, you didn't offer anything significant to what I said, I wonder why? could it be that you didn't listen to what I said? Nah, that would be me, so what could the possible reason be...oh yeah, your claim is that I didn't say what I said and when I ask you to show where I said what you claim I did, you refuse....

 

[razzelflabben]

Again, as it varied from FAMILY to family, it's a moot point. As inheritance and choosing to work early with one was not a rare thing---though it was common to wait until one died to inherit.

actually, as best I can tell, in all the many stories in scripture about inheritance, only one of the many stories shows any father giving the sons inheritance early and that is a parable.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

so teen meaning between the ages of 13 and 19 had no meaning in Jewish culture.

No--what's meaningless is trying to make a case out of it....as the views most scholars are for is that the groupings of the disciples were mixed---with some being in what we'd call "teens" (13-19, even though they'd be held accountable as men) and others in their 20's/30's and above (especially if married)

...

okay if that is your stand, then the logical argument would be that one year they were 12 and the next year they were 20, what did they do with all the time in between?

And again, no need being dense....especially if you're going to keep reading through with a 21st century lens of what seems "unlikely", as many in the ages of 13 to 19 were in full time jobs/life.

Remember, I already presented my side of the argument that where they became adults at age 13, teen does not refer to manhood, but rather the years between age 13 and 19...you disagree, you show here that either you refuse to understand what I said, or you don't think in Jewish culture that the ages between 12 and 20 exist....that is to apply logic to your argument as it relates to my comment....if you don't like that, you have an few options 1. you can step back and actually listen to what I am saying, 2. accuse me of saying something different than I did and flame me because you wanted me to say something else (your MO) or 3. admit you were wrong about what I said and move forward in the discussion...hope you choose wiselyk

.Actually, as what you've said does not deal at all with what I said and the point behind it, you again need to sit down, think before speaking and then come bac

As it is, I suspect you'll come back again--and somehow be going at it for another 3 days of senselessness

which is what I said this whole time....let's see if you can add something significant to what I already said from the first itme I brought up their ages....

When you're able to keep up with what I said in context---as the larger point was that with Peter/James and John coming from middle-class famlies/well starts, it's not impossible (or even improbable) to see that they could have been co-partners with their father..or with their father entrusting their business over to them---and as it is, most scholars do not place them automatically in their teens anyhow but in their 20's. For them to be in charge of running vibrant businesses by then would not be unusual.

nope, you didn't offer anything significant to what I said, I wonder why? could it be that you didn't listen to what I said?
Nah, that would be me, so what could the possible reason be...oh yeah, your claim is that I didn't say what I said and when I ask you to show where I said what you claim I did, you refuse....

Again, when you're ready to be mature and deal with what's said, we can go further

 

[razzelflabben]

--as it was argued continuously that the disciples left their business in shambles when they went to follow Jesus----

actually, what was argued is that those who left business to follow would find their businesses in shambles when they tried to return...nothing was said about those who left thier businesses to Zebedee....

and that was the only thing which was in debate, seeing that it could not be in shambles if they had families to feed.

notice the part you refused to read....

And as it is, you gave no evidence for showing it be the case that the others in the family were all responsible bread-winners/capable of taking care of their widowed mother.

I didn't have to because that isn't what I said....what I said is that we cannot assume from the text that all the siblings of both Jesus and the other disciples, were lazy and offered nothing to the care of the family...that would be an unfair assumption. Really helps when you deal with what I actually say....

Additionally, as it was not wild for parents to die with having young children, it's silly to assume that Joseph had to be around at the time.

agreed, it is possible that a father could die while young children were still in the home, the only problem is that there is nothing to suggest Jesus nor the other disciples had to deal with this problem and therefore assuming it to be the case is....what was that Razz, you said this before.....the problem I have with your views is that they read tooo much into your assumptions, things that aren't there, like whether or not Joseph died before Jesus siblings were grown...

You can be childish if you'd like in ignoring what you don't want to deal with---

I have no problem dealing with any of these issues, what I have a problem with is trying to deal with your reinvention of what I said and believe.

 

[razzelflabben]

No--what's meaningless is trying to make a case out of it....as the views most scholars are for is that the groupings of the disciples were mixed---with some being in what we'd call "teens" (13-19, even though they'd be held accountable as men) and others in their 20's/30's and above (especially if married)

???????? Do you have a clue what I said? Do you have a clue what point I was actually making?

...And again, no need being dense....especially if you're going to keep reading through with a 21st century lens of what seems "unlikely", as many in the ages of 13 to 19 were in full time jobs/life.

yep, and what I said is that if we give them 5 years of loss, that is 13-18, they had 1-2 years to build a business that would sustain them and their families through 3 years of abandoning their business....that does not suggest that I don't know they were considered men at 13, in fact, it shows just the opposite....it doesn't suggest that I don't think they couldn't start a business, but just the opposite...you take the opposite of what I am saying and try to argue it like it was mine....In what I said, I gave these disciples both adult and businessman status, but you can't see that, why? Isn't that high school understanding?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

actually, what was argued is that those who left business to follow would find their businesses in shambles when they tried to return...nothing was said about those who left thier businesses to Zebedee...

And again, a moot point---as one cannot have a business in shambles when it is left in the hands of another (As any good manager will do) who can take care of it.

. notice the part you refused to read.... I didn't have to because that isn't what I said....what I said is that we cannot assume from the text that all the siblings of both Jesus and the other disciples, were lazy and offered nothing to the care of the family

And again, you REALLY must learn to listen---as no one said anything about all of the other disiples's siblings being "lazy"/not willing to care for the family.

Moreover, no one even said that ALL (including those exceptionally young) of the other siblings of Jesus were "lazy" or did not offer contribute on some level for the family. If you can quote me otherwise, please do so before going further. But it seems you're reading extremes into what I said, as when saying "Some of the members of the family could have easily been unqualified to care for the family--either in Spirituality or Financial Ability/Responsibility"", that does not mean they were all bums sitting around the house doing nothing.....much like homes where kids are living at home with their momma and yet not paying rent. Additionally, just because others could have been working DOES NOT ERASE the reality that Jesus would have had the most impact--and therefore, would have to be doing the most work....as he inherited the MOST out of his father's estate as the Firstborn...and was responsible for growing it if working alongside his father.

The culture of the times determines how to read the text--and sadly, that's something you're failing to understand.

Really helps when you deal with what I actually say.

Again, not really being consistent on your part...

agreed, it is possible that a father could die while young children were still in the home, the only problem is that there is nothing to suggest Jesus nor the other disciples had to deal with this problem and therefore assuming it to be the case is...

And again, as you have to willfully go against the text to assume such (as scholars do not agree with you on the issue), you can believe what you wish.

..the problem I have with your views is that they read tooo much into your assumptions, things that aren't there, like whether or not Joseph died before Jesus siblings were grown... I have no problem dealing with any of these issues, what I have a problem with is trying to deal with your reinvention of what I said and believe.

And again, the fact that you're unable to see how you already read into the text what is not there yourself is self-evident...and sadly, you're the only one unable to see that--as has been the case in this thread and many other discussions where others have brought up the same to your attention

???????? Do you have a clue what I said? Do you have a clue what point I was actually making?

Again, as you seem unable to keep up with the discussion, sadden for you

What I said is that if we give them 5 years of loss, that is 13-18, they had 1-2 years to build a business that would sustain them and their families through 3 years of abandoning their business

And again, you fail to understand what the dynamics were for the fishing industry back in the day---as well as the realities of how certain families were at differing levels/able to give their own sons better starts due to how they handled the business previously---hence, why its a moot point even trying to bring up points of "loss" seeing that the business was already established by the fathers and in good standing rather than beginning from scratch. Sons from a middle class family (whether in "teen" years of age or in their 20's/30's) could work alongside of their fathers in partnership and do well---with their fathers entrusting parts of the business (if not all of it) to them if he so pleased/saw his son being successful. With James/John, scholars make clear they were on the level of being owners of the fishing boats/equipment and their father who could also be in the role of marketing the fish. If others were looking for work, even with people stepping away for a season as it relates to hired hands, people could be hired. For more info, one can check out the book entitled Jesus the Galilean: soundings in a first century life By David A. Fiensy

There's another you could consider looking into entitled " Daily Life in the New Testament "(which is an Online Read--but very well-detailed and fact-based). Additionally, for extra info, one can go to "Follow The Rabbi" website and investigate some of the articles they have, such as They Left Their Nets Behind and They Left Their Nets Behind. As said before:

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

As it is, its not impossible for one to have a business that can be built up in 2 years (especially if the product being sold is a very "in-demand" one that quick profit can always be made off of----as it was with the FISHING industry in Galilee where High prices often put fresh fish out of the reach of the poor). Since fish was an essential element in the diet of the majority of the population, every government had to give thought to its regular supply. If private entrepreneurs failed to meet the demands of the market, the government farmed out fishing contracts in much the same way as it farmed out tax-collecting contracts. Professional fishermen had to guarantee a stipulated supply...and capitalistic enterprises played a significant role in such a lucrative market and the owners earned much more than those who did the actual work. Where one stood made a world of difference as to whether or not they could.........and with the disciples being well-off, its clear they did not have it be the case where they would take heavy losses. The impression that they were men of substance who controlled their own lives is confirmed by the quality of their house at Capernaum. Known as the House of Peter since the fourth century, it is larger than most of the other houses excavated in Capernaum. Again, they could have easily gained enough for loved ones to live off on in 3 years time of walking away---and as it is, with many small businessess, they can survive when making them self-sufficient/having others (hired workers, as the Father and James/John did) to replace you in the work while you're gone. This was brought up earlier when it came to examples of other business endeavors that have done just that...as seen in #249

Additionally, as they already had another to take care of the company and their families were prepared to live on less income (due to the disciples leaving), it's not as if their business had to shut down/be in shambles. Boats could be rented out by others for other forms of profit in the time the disciples could not operate them themselves (as happened often in the Galilean Fishing industry)---while those who were still in the business could temporarily take leave of their own/could connect with other fishing companies for profit, as day laborers did when they may have hired themselves out to work for others if they struggle on their own endeavors. Its similar to the entire dynamic dynamic of a barber shop struggling to survive at a time and yet selling out to a larger business that can make something of it.

One would have to assume the business was in bad standing/not having enough time before hand (as if it started the moment the disciples began at 12 or 13 rather than already being in existence with Zebedee in his 40 or more years of being in the trade) in order to support the conclusion you have just made. ADDITIONALLY, one would have to assume that the fishing industry was something one could not make an immediate profit in and that was the same as other companies today.

....that does not suggest that I don't know they were considered men at 13, in fact, it shows just the opposite....it doesn't suggest that I don't think they couldn't start a business, but just the opposite...you take the opposite of what I am saying and try to argue it like it was mine....In what I said, I gave these disciples both adult and businessman status, but you can't see that, why? Isn't that high school understanding?

God Bless

 

[razzelflabben]

And again, a moot point---as one cannot have a business in shambles when it is left in the hands of another (As any good manager will do) who can take care of it.

I never suggested otherwise....

And again, learn to listen---as no one said anything about the other disiples's siblings being "lazy" or unable to care for the family. And again, you do not have scholarly basis on the issue especially in light of the Jewish Concept of Firstborn taking care of others. The culture of the times determines how to read the text--and sadly, that's something you're failing to understand.

???????? you said that Jesus would have been responsible for providing for all of His family, I said that many of them would be providing for themselves, as grown "adults", you insisted I was wrong, that the eldest son was responsible for taking care of all of His family....yadda yadda yadda...so we have two options, 1. either I am right, and Jesus would not likely have been working to support His parents, grandparents, and grown siblings, (without help) or 2. you are right and only the eldest child was working for the entire family, so the question then is what happens with the oldest child of one of Jesus siblings? He also would be taken care of by Jesus according to your interpretation of the Jewish law....so which is it, all the siblings in Jewish culture were lazy as you claim, which would extend to the siblings of the disciples, or that all adults would be contributing to the finacial status of their own families? You get to choose...choose wisely...

As it is, its not impossible for one to have a business that can be built up in 2 years (especially if the product being sold is a very "in-demand" one that quick profit can always be made off of) and have enough for loved ones to live off on in 3 years of walking away---

not impossible, I mean come on, "all things are possible for God" but very, highly improbable which is all I ever offered.

and as it is, with many small businessess, they can survive when making it self-sufficient/having others to replace you in the work while you're gone. This was brought up earlier when it came to examples of other business endeavors that have done just that...as seen in #249

never brought into debate...

One would have to assume the business was in bad standing/not having enough time before hand (as if it started the moment the disciples began at 12 or 13) in order to support the conclusion you have just made.

?????????? please explain how you come to that? If one is starting a business from scratch, that is not inheriting a business, (which was the context of this comment) can expect to loose money for five years, the likelihood of that business being thriving and making "boat loads of money" in the span of 7 years (max) would be highly improbable.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Additionally-------with Jesus giving away his mother to John, it would have been FOOLISH to do so if his father was still alive...as that right belonged only to a LIVING father. Its logical to say Joseph was dead since no one else was available to give Mary away.

For a Jewish perspective on the issue---From one of the ministries earlier referenced entitled "Follow The Rabbi" (which argued for Jesus being a teen at some point alongside the disciples),

Now, in the Jewish culture of that time (1st century) it was required of the father to teach the son their trade at age 12, and find a wife for them around the age of 20. Joseph being very Jewish would have adhered to this practice and began teaching Jesus at 12 his trade of being a builder (Teckton).

However, Jesus was not promised a wife so why did Joseph fall short on this responsibility? We see in Luke 2:41-48 that Jesus and Joseph are together and Jesus is 12 the age in which He would begin to learn Joseph?s trade. After this Joseph disappears from the stories in the Bible. Why? Where did He go? Evidence indicates that Joseph died at an early age. When Jesus? Family come to get Him in Matthew 12:46-49, Joseph is not with them. Also in John 19:26-27 when Jesus is on the cross He gives His mother to John for him to take care of her indicating that Joseph was not there to do it. So, this means Joseph had to die sometime when Jesus was 12 ? - 33 ?. Since Jesus was not promised a bride this indicates that Joseph must have died before Jesus? 20?s. So this narrows the gap from 12 ? - 19 ?. Now, in the culture of that region (Galilee) in that time (1st century) all Jewish boys would study in school until they were twelve and then they would begin learning their fathers trade and Jesus was 100% Jewish. The ?gifted ones? would continue their studies until they were 15 and in Luke 2:47, we see that Jesus was ?very gifted?. So most likely He would have continued studying while He worked. When a student reached 15 most finished their schooling and either went into the family business or became a disciple of one of the great Rabbis. Only the exceptional students would be chosen by the Rabbis and we know that Jesus was as exceptional as it gets, so why wasn?t He chosen by any? Well in that culture if the father of the household dies, the eldest son must take the responsibility to provide for the family. We know Joseph died early and we know Jesus was not a disciple of any of the Rabbis. So this means that Joseph died while Jesus was 12 ? - 15. This means that Jesus had to work for a living. He had to provide for His family. He was a Teckton (Builder). So how did Jesus learn so much, who did He learn from? This was the same question the religious leaders wondered (John 7:15-16). The answer is found in Isaiah 50. When speaking of the Messiah (Christ) the prophet says: ?The Lord GOD has given Me the tongue of disciples, That I may know how to sustain the weary one with a word He awakens Me morning by morning, He awakens My ear to listen as a disciple. The Lord GOD has opened My ear; And I was not disobedient Nor did I turn back (NASB). Here scripture tells us that Jesus was a disciple. He was a disciple of G-d Himself. Jesus confirms this in John 15:15 when He says ??for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you. We also see when Jesus begins His ministry (at 30 years old) it is G-d Himself that descends upon Him and gives Him His authority (Luke 3:22). G-d had it all planned out since to beginning (Isaiah 46:9-10). He knew Joseph would die early and Jesus would have to serve as the provider for His family. This would keep Him from learning under another man. No, Jesus could not be a disciple of any human Rabbi because then He would have become like that Rabbi. To be a disciple of a Rabbi is to become just like the Rabbi. Jesus? Rabbi could only be G-d Himself, because that is who He was, who He is, and who He will be forever. Amen. Jesus is our guide, our model, our way. Jesus taught us how to do it (Matthew 10:24), how to work, live life, and be taught by G-d (Luke 6:40). Just like Jesus G-d Himself should be our Rabbi and we are to be taught by Him (1John 2:27). As we are lead by the Spirit (Romans 8:14) we become just like Jesus (1John 4:17) our Rabbi (Matthew 23:8). Jesus said ?Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), be Holy as I am Holy? (Leviticus 11:44-45, 19:2, 20:26, 21:8, & 1Peter 1:16).

​

Originally Posted by razzelflabben
?????????? please explain how you come to that? If one is starting a business from scratch, that is not inheriting a business, (which was the context of this comment) can expect to loose money for five years, the likelihood of that business being thriving and making "boat loads of money" in the span of 7 years (max) would be highly improbable

And again, if one is already connected to a WELL-Established business and having the blessing/support of others to start your own (as it is with many businesses that start with other credible/long-existing others before branching out on their own and yet being in good standing still), your point.

And again, you're failing drastically at dealing with the reality of the social status of some of the disciples (as well as James/John ) had-----As well as the reality that for them to have begun in middle class families--with PARENTS who were already in good standing/running good businesses in place before they came into the scene---it would not have been an odd thing for them even as young as 16 or 17 to be running a successful business with their father since the man had already been in the game longer than others/gave something for others to come into. If the father was in business for 30 years, it's not the case that when his son starts working beside him on certain portions of it for 7 years (or less) that not enough income is made--or can be made. And if the son is running his own business with support from his father (as in a mini-business within a larger/established one), its not improbable. Peter's Own home is evidence of the level of social sustainability that he had in the community. One can go and examine the quality of their house at Capernaum. Known as the House of Peter since the fourth century, it is larger than most of the other houses excavated in Capernaum...and seen for how significant of the spacing it was to hold others.

​

On a side note, as I never said that they were making "boat-loads" of money, seeing that one can have a business that makes enough finance for others to continually live on without it being "lavish", it seems again you're reading into what is not there

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Money is nothing more than a tool to get things done (services) and to get things (goods). These things (including the money it takes to buy these items) in of themselves aren't evil if they are properly managed and handled as tools to do good with rather than worshipped as a god and kept in the forfront of one's thinking all day long. There's a ton of stuff money can't help you with, so true wealth isn't having a bunch of money even though having money is a small part of it.

It's much better to take a balanced approach to money instead of getting off in the ditch on one side (we should have just enough to barely get by), or get off in the ditch on the other side (we should have so much money, it's OK to lie and steal and whatever...just git me some money!)

On point, sir...and many thanks for bringing up what you did.

 

[razzelflabben]

As the firstborn, it would have been important/of significance for him to take up his father's trade since the fate of the family rested in his hands.

doesn't affect the point I made one single little bit.

Not really a good logical example to begin with----as the firstborn children of the other siblings are within their hands.

yep, that was my point...

And specifically, we're talking about those siblings UNABLE to take care of themselves

again, exactly my point....if they were capable of caring for themselves, they did, they didn't just say, oh well, I have an older brother to do everything for me....I'm so glad your finally getting this...

...people who are dependents. With your analogy, it would have to be proven that the other siblings were already MARRIED/old enough to even have or begin considering having children. And many scholars have noted Jesus (if in teen years, from 13-19) would have had many younger brothers/sisters. Not an odd thing, seeing many families where the oldest is in his 20's and his younger sister is only 4 or 5--or the other brothers being 9-11. As is it, if the oldest child of a sibling was existent, this would not be a real point to support your view seeing that the child could have been 10yrs old or younger...and in a family, you looked out for those unable to take care of themselves. No one is going to abandon/not give aid for other little children just because "It's Uncle Johnny's child"...and living in families where there was extended social networking, it was reality for me. If the uncle or aunt was not able/willing to provide for the child, others would come to the rescue who could do the job.

I wasn't going to address this, because it once again totally misses the point, but then I thought, give his dude the benefit of the doubt and address it anyway...so here goes....my comment was, when put in context, addressing your assertion that Jesus (as well as the other disciples from the sounds of it, though over time I'm guessing your not on that page any more)was solely responsible for the care of His entire family and would therefore need to have a booming carpentry business....of which my reply was that you are reading into the text much more than you can, because there was most likely others to share in the care of the family. Of the others would be parents, grandparents and older siblings. To which you went into a long and boring argument of which I still don't know what you think I said. So, let me, while keeping in context of my original claim, clarify so of what you are missing here....in order to not read into the text, and culture of the time, (remember my problem with your assertions is that you read tooooooo much into the texts) you would have to 1. evidence that grandfather was no longer able to contribute, 2. evidence that Joseph was no longer able to contribute, 3. evidence that none of the siblings (which is unlikely being that Mary and Joseph were already betrothed) we still minors, something remember that only a few posts back, you put Jesus at 20-30 years at this time and that 4. if the siblings (any of them) were of age, were lazy and refusing to contribute to any family including any He may have started at the time....of those things, you have not shown any evidence either in scripture, out of scripture, or even through logic...all you have shown is your assertion that no one would have been contributing but Jesus....now, if you want to carry on in this charade you have begun, show evidence, heck I'll even take the most likely senerio as evidence, to support your assumptions here....I am saying to you, that as a young man, Jesus would not likely (though possible, very improbably) be the only bread winner for the entire household Mary and Joseph would have been responsible for (according to Jewish culture and law).

With Jesus, we already know that he had a big family--with many younger sisters/brothers..as discussed in Matthew 12:46, Mark 6:3, John 2:12, John 7:3-5, John 7:10, Acts 1:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5 and Galatians 1:19. And their differing ages can be examined/studied further later to see who would have been older or who would have been young enough to be dependent on him. And for more info,

so now, your changing your assumption to say that some of Jesus siblings would have been of age to contribute....we are making progress.....!!!!

Of course it was the case that those with their own families had to lead them/be the spiritual/respective leader in their "pack" when they married/left home.

again, just what I said.....

Of course in a family others were expected to work--

yep, just what I told you....

-but as it is, it was not always the case (with some irresponsible and others not able to make it).

yep, and that is the exception not the rule, therefore in order to assume the exception, you need evidence to support it.

Additionally-------with Jesus giving away his mother to John, it would have been FOOLISH to do so if his father was still alive..

which happened at the crucifixion not at the time the disciples were called to follow, which leaves us some time unaccounted for that you must evidence Joseph's death before your assumption can hold any water.

 

[razzelflabben]

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&...G=Search&cx=009123023103718351957:fmuorp4vu4s


another entire post by you and not one single thing that relates to what I have been saying...how much understanding and attention did you claim high schoolers have?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Doesn't affect the point I made one single little bit.

Doesn't matter----as the entire point of others working in the family does not change the reality that Christ had to work as any other building up resources/bearing the weight of being a hard worker to provide for his family (which the point I originally made to another before you came along trying to counter).

if they were capable of caring for themselves, they did, they didn't just say, oh well, I have an older brother to do everything for me....

Again, missing the point--as it doesn't matter if they could provide for themselves since Jesus would have had to STILL be the the hardest worker/main breadwinner in the family (just as the FATHER..or Father figure in a family bears the most weight in the family with provision/building up even when others may be working around)---and as said before, there's an assumption on your part that ALL of the siblings of Christ were old enough to work rather than some of them being dependents/still at home and in his scope of provision. Sadly, you've yet to get this...and still claiming others read into the text when you've already done so yourself in the protest of "Well, they wouldn't be at home just looking to him!!!"--or forgetting the point originally made that Jesus would have bore the greatest weight/responsibility

For if having a Family of 6---with 3 of your brothers being old enough to work (and even married) and starting out on their ownwhile the others still being young children at the home still---it is a reality for them to be provided for.

.

Your changing your assumption to say that some of Jesus siblings would have been of age to contribute....we are making progress.....!!!!

Again, as I made clear from the jump that some of the siblings were at the age to contribute (unless you can quote me DIRECTLY saying otherwise), you've shown you're not able to keep up. What was stated clearly (my original premise) was that having a family with those those ABLE to contribute (as it relates to their age) never meant that all in the family did so responsibly---as it could have easily been the case that some were not responsible/pulling their weight around when they should have.....and others, even if working, did not have good character. That much is seen clearly when it comes to how his brothers often treated him many times growing up---and if missing it there in that department, one can easily suspect that it could be the case that other areas were off..........whether with maturity in handling finances with godly stewardship or handling them with the best interest of the family at heart. Of course, it could also have been the case that those working were indeed good working men---as many solid workers have some of the nastiest attitudes (i.e. greedy, ruthless, callous, etc) but they still get the job done in a shrewd manner. But even then, that would not mean that his brothers could have been trusted.......and thus, why it was said repeatedly that Jesus had GOOD reason not to entrust his brothers with the fate of his mother.

Praying you'd learn to pay attention this side of eternity

just what I told you.

And again, what you told me I never disagreed with and made clear, had you not assumed before listening

... yep, and that is the exception not the rule,
therefore in order to assume the exception, you need evidence to support it.

Incorrect---hence, why laws/customs were made to address it and why it was a problem in many families---and again, where you're assuming without showing otherwise in evidence (which you've yet to do)

which happened at the crucifixion not at the time the disciples were called to follow,
which leaves us some time unaccounted for that you must evidence Joseph's death before your assumption can hold any water.

And again, moot point--as the time frame of the disciples called to follow Jesus onward to the crucifixion spanned only 3 years. Not that long of a span to change the stance of one who is in need of provision---and as it is, for Joseph to not be available during the last year of Christ's ministry yet somehow ALIVE previously to that is intriguing. If he were alive at the time of Christ starting ministry, things would have still been wild since it was customary for the eldest to inherit the business/trade of the Father---and even with the father working still/having other sons involved, that would have been detrimental for Jesus to turn down his father/shun the role of what the Firstborn was to to......as it went against Jewish Custom.

As it is, for Joseph to have died so quickly within 3 years time would logically indicate that either there was a RANDOM accident that killed him (unlikely)---or, as goes with being in a trade a LONG time---Joseph was retired, already old/infirm as it is...and on his way out. If that were the case, Jesus would have STILL been in the trade during the time/preparing to lead the family....and it all comes back to taking care of business being PRIMARILY upon the back of Christ, as was shown when he entrusted care of Mary to John since as the eldest son/leader He could no longer CARRY OUT HIS DUTIES for provision of her.

On the issue, as it was also customary in the day for others to be in OLDER age marrying younger virgins (as in someone in their 30's marrying someone who's 16), its not unprobable for Joseph to have been dead by the time Jesus was in his 20's/30s. As another brother in the Lord said best:

Since Yeshua gave his mother over to John's care, there is credibility in that. However, we know that Joseph was still alive when Yeshua was 12 years of age...

Luke 2:42-52
42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. 43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother did not know it;
​

Joseph could have lived much longer - after all they didn't mention Yeshua's exploits after that until He re-appeared on the scene much later either - a tremendous volume of detail has been left out of the accounts. Another hint of greater longevity is that Yeshua was part of a pretty big family and that His earthly father lived long enough to teach Yeshua a trade:

Mark 6:1-5
3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.
​

Four brothers, plus Himself, and then an uncounted number of sisters - tho more than one for sure since they use a plural form. They didn't mention these siblings when the 12 year old boy Yeshua was missing - tho surely at least some of them had been born already. Wow - seven kids running around the house - I feel for Mary and Joseph! Two is enough for us. But admittedly, in a male-dominated culture that didn't even give us the names or number of His sisters and yet names His mother specifically and declines to name His earthly father - that is also a hint that at that particular time, Joseph was no longer on the scene. But then - there was no mentioned of this family being paupers or destitute - for at the same time, they were known to these people by name and were not anonymous beggars. Yeshua no doubt had to support His family as a carpenter for some time at least - but then His family didn't seem to be hurting for money either, even when Yeshua was busy with His ministry.

When He began His ministry, He attended a wedding party with His mother, brothers and disciples. I have to wonder who was getting married that they should be there. But Mary apparently had enough authority to tell the servants what to do so she was surely an honored guest. Hardly a humble pauper, this woman. Oh, but she was spunky - I like her energy, even after raising so many kids. Just totally ignores Yeshua's protest and tells the servants to do as He says. What a mother - so confident in her Son.

John 2:1-10
1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”
4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”
5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”
6 Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And He said to them, “Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.” And they took it. 9 When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. 10 And he said to him, “Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!”
​

Also, traditionally - IIRC - men were often much older than the virgins they marry. Often they'll go off to make a suitable home then they will get their bride. Dowries have to be paid too. So he could have been in his late twenties or early thirties before marrying the 15 to 16 year old Mary. By the time Yeshua was in His thirties, His earthly father could have been in his fifties or sixties! A

Unless of course the general consensus of Biblical Scholarship is all wrong and you (the new authority) are the ONLY one right in saying it's not probable that Joseph, the father of Jesus, died during the quiet years of Jesus' life. I'll stick with the general consensus since the Bible mentions Jesus's father when describing the early life of Jesus (as Joseph is last mentioned in Scripture when Jesus was 12 years old in Luke 2:41-42), but it does not mention his father during the time after the start of Jesus's ministry..and the lack of any mention of him in the biblical accounts of Jesus' adult ministry is taken to imply that he had already died by that time. The most probable view for that is that he was no longer in the picture--unlike Jesus' mother/brothers and sisters who were still around to follow/protest.

And even if Joseph was around, that does not hinder Jesus from leading the family/having to have a good business. As one of my brothers in the Lord said best:

I see His status in the society as similar to that of my boss and his family - for his sons are also part of the business, all share-holders in the corporation. All are hardworking and none are outrageously rich or considered "kings" on their own but they hold a respectable and comfortable status within the society here.​

On Jewish law, one could not give away rights of provision/primary care to another unless the FATHER in a family was already past--and in line with that, unless there were no other brothers of that father alive. Biblical Israel had a patriarchal or father-centered form of family life. From biblical times, as a father and husband, a man would defend his family's right before the judges when necessary (Deut. 22:13-19). One can go to Deuteronomy 25 for more info. Additionally, for Jesus to have been addressed by his mothers/brothers in the beginning of his ministry to take him home without the FATHER being present would not have been normal---nor logical.

I wasn't going to address this, because it once again totally misses the point, but then I thought, give his dude the benefit of the doubt and address it anyway...so here goes.

As it is, you've already clear you really have no other concern for really understanding what another says if it goes past your ability to comprehend.

addressing your assertion that Jesus (as well as the other disciples from the sounds of it, though over time I'm guessing your not on that page any more)was solely responsible for the care of His entire family and would therefore need to have a booming carpentry business....of which my reply was that you are reading into the text much more than you can, because there was most likely others to share in the care of the family.

And again, others to aid in taking care of the family was never in any way counter to the reality that as the firstborn, Jesus would have had primary leadership in leading the family/direction and direction. The word "primary" indicates at the forefront---rather than being the only one, as even with others possibly working to contribute doesn't change the fact of how it falls on you to make certain the affairs of a house are in order/everything's in place to ensure that the family's doing well and that your mother never comes to being destitute---hence, why it was said (as well as most scholars do) that Jesus was a hard/successful worker in the carpentry business and needed to do so prior to setting out on the road for ministry.....

And as said before, even though some could have been working, it does not erase the reality of how in Jewish families, not always was it the case (or even abnormal) to have it be found that not all members in the family pulled their weight around---or that some were financially irresponsible/possessing bad stewardship skills that indicated a level of less trust in what they could do.

Of the others would be parents, grandparents and older siblings. To which you went into a long and boring argument of which I still don't know what you think I said.

And again, as based in the comments, more reason why you really don't have any need protesting that you're against "flamming"----if willing to resort to the childishness of ad-hominem.

No one said anything about your arguments being "boring", but as suspected, you have higher opinion (PRIDE) of yourself when making a point than you do of those disagreeing with you----so not surprising to see the silliness in your comments.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Originally Posted by razzelflabben
So, let me, while keeping in context of my original claim, clarify so of what you are missing here....in order to not read into the text, and culture of the time, (remember my problem with your assertions is that you read tooooooo much into the texts), you would have to 1. evidence that grandfather was no longer able to contribute, 2. evidence that Joseph was no longer able to contribute, 3. evidence that none of the siblings (which is unlikely being that Mary and Joseph were already betrothed) we still minors

[/quote]



Being betrothed/married has nothing to do with children NOT being minors----as Mary and Joseph were betrothed BEFORE Christ, Matthew 1:18-20 / Matthew 1...and only had children after Christ was born, Matthew 1:25. And nowhere is it shown the siblings were all born immediatley one after the other---as that's not even how it was in many Jewish families then. Families were diverse, with some sons being in their "teens" (i.e. 13-19), others in their 20's/30s and some even being as young as 3-5yrs. It's already established Jesus had 4 brothers (and most likely, 2 to 3 sisters), as seen in Matthew 13:54-56---by the time Christ was in his 20s/30s. One can do the math in spacing the family out and seeing how (as many couples) it was probable minors were involved. When Jesus was 12 in the temple, for all of the siblings to have been born at the time would be improbable.


As it is, Joseph/Mary are not recorded having any children after Jesus until He was 2yrs of age.

Matthew 2:16
16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
​

It has often been assumed from reading Matthew 2:1-2 that the Magi came just after Jesus birth while he was still living in the stable.

Matthew 2/Matthew 2:1

The Visit of the Magi


1After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi] from the east came to Jerusalem 2and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east] and have come to worship him."
​

In Matthew 2:1, it states that they came to His house:

Matthew 2:11
On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh.
Matthew 2:10-12 Matthew 2

​

And in light of Herod who learned of it/reacted, it's most likely that Jesus was 1 to 2 years old. There's also the view that they came technically when Jesus was at least 4 or 5yrs (or even younger near the toddler stage as it relates to what age a "child" is)



With that established, that would automatically mean that most likely Mary immediately had James 2 to 3 years after, Joseph in the same time after (within 2 years), and onward with Simon and Judas...meaning that his brothers, by the time, would have been around the ages of 10, 8, 6 and 4 (or 3). With his sisters, they probably were not even around at the time if the whole family had to be there...as they could have easily came much later. By the time Jesus was in his 20's. But again, that is one probable guess on the issue. It could have also been the case that the parents of Jesus did not have any kids outside of him until AFTER he was 12yrs of age---would would also mean that even when he was in his 20's/30s, at least one of his siblings (if not 2) were in the minor age. Additionally, as it's not improbable for people to have kids even in their 40's/50s' (as my OWN parents did with my little sister---who's 18 yrs younger than I) as have many families, there's no need to act as if its illogical to say that Mary could have had say 3 children when she was younger at 16---and then later, as time went on, the children spaced out such as having one 15 yeas after #3 and then the sisters as well.

Again, my mother was an OB-Gyn---and got pregnant late in age, surprising her---AND BEYOND THAT, you do realize that Genesis 25:1-3 Genesis 25 makes clear Abraham took on another wife after Sarai and even in older age, had other children by her. So if even trying to claim it's ILLOGICAL, then you need to do more research. And seeing how families were back then, with children being born it's not improbable. Ultimately, it was a big family and MANY responsibilities.



With the issue of where Joseph was at the time of Christ's ministry (seeing that most of the debate centers around whether Jesus would have been the PRIMARY one working in the family--with the counter argument being that Joseph was around to help out), We see in Luke 2:41-48 that Jesus and Joseph are together and Jesus is 12 the age in which He would begin to learn Joseph?s trade. After this Joseph disappears from the stories in the Bible. Also, as customary, a boy would be found a wife by the age of 20. But Jesus was never pledged one. When Jesus' Family come to get Him in Matthew 12:46-49, Joseph is not with them. Also in John 19:26-27 when Jesus is on the cross He gives His mother to John for him to take care of her indicating that Joseph was not there to do it. So, this means Joseph had to die sometime when Jesus was 12 - 33 posssibly.

Will say it again that Joseph drops out of the gospel narratiaves at a fairly early stage, and the most likely explanation is that he died relatively young. If this is the case, then finance could have been a major issue during Jesus' childhood.


On the "grandparents" point (On a side note), of course there's already an issue to address WHICH grandfather we're discussing---WHETHER it was Heli or Joseph (as to his father's or mother's side--as there's debate on that as well...as discussed best by John Piper in THE BAPTISM AND GENEALOGY OF JESUS - (Luke 3:21-38) - John Piper andWho Was Jesus’ Grandfather?/The Genealogy of Jesus ). But whether or not the grandfather is alive has again NOTHING to do with the fact of Christ having the right/responsibility to ensuring the family does well and that he had to give the primary care of his mother to another. Additionally, as those being GRAND-Fathers would have been unable to work enough (just as today with many in extremely OLD age)/were taken care of BY the family in old age, contribution on their parts is futile discussing.

Ultimately, it is upon you to show---both in Jewish Commentary and Customary Norms--that in their time, the Firstborn Son of a man did not bear the most weight when it came to the family name...even when/if others (whether grandpa, dad in old age or brothers) did their part to contribute later. And again---as you've offtered neither COMMENTARY from Jewish sources on the culture/what DIRECTLY happened nor have you shown how your views were apparent then---you do not have any basis for any claim of others "reading into the text". As it is, if need be, I will go to the Messianic Jewish board for more confirmation on the silliness of what you're doing

Something remember that only a few posts back, you put Jesus at 20-30 years at this time and that 4. if the siblings (any of them) were of age, were lazy and refusing to contribute to any family including any He may have started at the time....of those things, you have not shown any evidence either in scripture, out of scripture, or even through logic...all you have shown is your assertion that no one would have been contributing but Jesus.
...now, if you want to carry on in this charade you have begun, show evidence, heck I'll even take the most likely scenerio as evidence, to support your assumptions here....I am saying to you, that as a young man, Jesus would not likely (though possible, very improbably) be the only bread winner for the entire household Mary and Joseph would have been responsible for (according to Jewish culture and law).

Once again, need to be consistent if discussing anything of "remembering", as I never said such. I said that it was possiblbe/probable that not all of the members of Jesus's family were working hard---and even if they were, Christ still had the weight of being a hard worker/building up resources since primary care fell upon his shoulders as the Firstborn. I also made clear that it was not necessarily the case that ALL the members of the family were "lazy"---as that's your own words you keep trying to attribute to me rather than what I said clear in context. What I said was that some members may have been UNABLE to contribute significantly (i.e. finance for estate/business issues)---otherwise known as DEPENDENTS.

If you think otherwise, all you need to do (if able) is go back---and directly quote me for posting/reference.

On the rest of what you said, of course I don't expect you to comprehend what was stated--as you've already indicated you're unable to read fully anything given..and have already proven yourself a liar/hyprocritical in claiming to be against "flamming" when you've done so throughout your post in trying to make issue of "Long/boring" posts as if that in any way shows logical dealing with them. As you've already made clear you're for selective reading, of course I expect you to be partial/inconsistent...ignoring what you don't like..and then, after not reading, acting as a child by asking for more. So again, whether or not you comprehend a point has NO bearing on whether or not a point was made that you consistently failed to address.

But sadly, I suspect you're more concerned for "having the last word" anyhow than really listening, Proverbs 13:10/Proverbs 17:19/Proverbs 27:15. On commentary of "charade", you were the one to begin anything close to a "charade" by coming after my posts for as long as you have..and as it is, you could have walked away days ago. But as suspected, you seem unable to do so/ bent on doing this all week. ...and with the dismissal of what I've taken time for writing, you demonstrate the nature of a mocker, Proverbs 22:10. If you want to keep this up another 24 hours--or 24 days, for that matter--you're free to do so. But sad to see in action...as it's an exercise in futility

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

Ecclesiastes 4:13
Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more.


​

 

[razzelflabben]

And again, you were already quoted on such already before...and ignored it, as well as ignoring where you switched/acted foolishily when all that was said was that Jesus was responsible for care of his family---which you disagreed.

is that the one I asked you to remind me what I was suppose to be saying? and you refused, in place of more insults?

Continue to lie, if it suits you. As you're bent on doing such regardless. Pity

okay, that is enough....I will do what I do not do, I will be reporting you, the reason being that I have never lied to you nor done anything that would suggest I did...all this time, I have been patient, kind, ignoring all the flaming, only to be called point blank, not even sideways, or with evidence, a liar...that is stepping way over the line, if I am a liar, there will be evidence of which you cannot present, and yes, I have on occasion called another's post lies, but I could show the lies and provided plenty of opportunity for truth to be told and never once did I call the poster a liar, only what they were saying....consider yourself reported...

The main point I have said is that others contributing doesn't change the reality of Jesus being responsible for the family...and that some could have/would have easily been minors/dependents. You took what I SAID/foolishly equated that with may saying Jesus was the only one working hard--and when quoted on it, lie.

I acknoweledged that Jesus would have been responsible, even talked about that responsibility with Mary and added to it and you proclaimed your disagreement with everything I said....doesn't leave a lot of options.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

is that the one I asked you to remind me what I was suppose to be saying? and you refused, in place of more insults?

Again, you really do not have any room discussing anything of insults--as you've already done so to multiple people already

okay, that is enough....I will do what I do not do, I will be reporting you, the reason being that I have never lied to you nor done anything that would suggest I did...all this time, I have been patient, kind, ignoring all the flaming, only to be called point blank, not even sideways, or with evidence,

Thou Protest too much


Again, it'd behoove you to please stop flattering yourself---as there are a host of comments I could bring up by yourself (both here and elsewhere in other discussions) where you easily were either CALLED OUT by others---or doing the very thing you said only others do. As it is, kindness is not evaluated by how you think you are--but by what others have said...and as it is, when time's taken to write up an answer, its insulted. When there's more time invested to show properly where another's coming from, it's called "making things up" (as you've done repeatedly...the equivalent of saying another's "lying")...and again, many other comments have been said by you that were far from either GRACIOUS or REASONABLE----unless of course it's now a courteous thing to say what others write up as "long and boring". So if you want to report, you're more than free to do so---and if it gets deleted, so be it---as it's not the end of the world, nor is it the case one cannot go back/address the error in what you said. Though the sword cuts both ways and you're far from innocent on it---if you'd be open enough to face yourself on the issue rather than trying to play the role of the martyr, Psalm 36:1-3 Psalm 36

if I am a liar, there will be evidence of which you cannot present, and yes, I have on occasion called another's post lies, but I could show the lies and provided plenty of opportunity for truth to be told and never once did I call the poster a liar, only what they were saying....consider yourself reported..

If that's what you wish. Though again, it can come back on you JUST as easily/be reported where you've done the same repeatedly---both here and in multiple other discussions.

And it'd behoove you to learn/listen before speaking--and not flatter yourself so much in a discussion.


In the event my post gets "deleted", I will again repeat (for the last time, prayerfully) why many of your comments seem to be greatly off.

As said before, in sequence of events:

Originally Posted by razzelflabben

no one, including me suggested that Jesus was not a hard worker, that He did not work as a carpenter, or that He was not responsible for the care of His family....to say otherwise is dishonest on your part. What was said is that it is important to exercise caution when reading into the passage what is not there, because Jesus saw God as His father, not Joseph as such, Jewish culture dictated that He would see His profession as that of people, not carpenter...

1.) All that was said from the beginning was that Jesus WAS a hard worker who looked out for his own since he was the FIRST Born son/eldest---that he was responsible to care for the family. As it was, there was disagreement when it was stated PLAINLY that Jesus had to work hard in the business before ministry since you brought up the point that it could not have been primarily on him due to having other siblings. Hence, why there was discussion...and it was also discussed on how Jesus's Profession was seen as People JUST as much as when he was in Carpentry as it was when he was doing ministry--with there being no basis in Jewish culture to support as you did.

And to note, I quoted you directly on such already as before...with you DISAGREEING...but it was ignored--and when I sought to make clear that Jesus was responsible for care of his family---and hence, why he worked a job, that was ignored too. If there was no disagreement with that simple comment, then there should not have been other points brought up by yourself such as saying "So you think Jesus had to take care of all of his brothers/sisters as well???"

​

so now you are suggesting that Jesus was both Joseph and big brother???????

​

I have never said that Jesus was Joseph----as I made clear that as the eldest in the family, Jesus would have led---and in the event that the father was either unable (due to age/being infirm) or absent (as in dead), Jesus would have played the role that his father Joseph did. And as said before, I sought to make clear how it didn't matter if other siblings could provide for themselves since Jesus would have had to STILL be the the hardest worker/main breadwinner in the family

Now Mary and Joseph were getting married when Jesus was born, so it would be safe to say that at least some of His "many" siblings were of age, that would then mean, that it is highly improbable that Jesus had no siblings that were old enough to be contributing through work at the time this discussion takes place.

​

Again, I have never said AT all that Jesus did not have ANY siblings that were old enough to contribute to work---unless one can quote me otherwise and show DIRECTLY from my comments. For as it is, I argued that from the text it seemed obvious that some of Jesus's siblings were at least of adult age, if not in their teen years (i.e. 13-19) then in their 20's/30's. Again, no one argued that there were none of his siblings able to contribute. For what was discussed from the jump was that others contributing doesn't change the reality of Jesus being responsible for the family/having to ensure the carpentry business (as long as he was in it) went successful...and that some of the siblings could have/would have easily been minors/dependents.

say that Mary was 13 when she had Jesus (not likely, but we're trying to put a good spin on things), Let's say that they had, hummmm, what do you think, 6 kids, 8? an average of 2 years between each child, that would be 16 years.....we have to give her at least 25 years after Jesus was born to have those additional 6-8 kids, so that would make Mary 13 (when she had Jesus) + 25 years (giving Jesus time to mature to the age we are discussion) + an additional 12-18 years for the remainder of the children, that means Mary was most likely still having children at age...50-56 years of age, the age of menapause for most woman, just for for the best possible timeline on your theory......and that would still be a problem because the older children would be pushing 13 if not 13 or older by the time kid 6-8 came along, not to mention why they would have had no children for 25 years.​

​

As mentioned before, there are many parents who have had children in their 40-50's, thus making it inconsistent for trying to say that it is impossible for Mary to have kids. And it was addressed earlier in this post, #278---as the reality is that if having children over a long span of time, it's not improbable for the ages of children to be spaced out, just as some families have it where the oldest is in their 20's while he may have four or five siblings spaced out in-between.

And even apart from that, as it is is, there's no guarantee that Mary herself was automatically in her 50's/60'S having children. Regarding Mary's age, its really impossible to say exactly. What is known is that Mary would have been a teenage girl at the time of his birth. And in Jewish Law in those days it was permissable/a customary practice for pubescent girls to marry and have children. Joseph could have easily been in his 30's/40's by the time he was betrohed---hence, why it would be reasonable that in-between the years of Jesus being 12 and 20, Joseph could have died. As Jesus was Mary's firstborn and she was merely betrothed rather than married to Joseph when she became pregnant, it is unlikely that she would have been older than anywhere between 13 - 15 at the time of the birth. Moreover, if Jesus lived for around 33 years as is believed according to scripture, Mary would have been no more than 15 + 33 years - i.e. 48 at the time of his death. With that stated, it could hardly be the case that she would have been considered "old" by todays standards---and for that matter, as mentioned before, she could have easily had kids and spaced them out still as some families do today. As said before, my own mother had a child in her LATE 40's (while my father was in his 50's)---and there's a SIGNIFICANT age gap between her and I in my 20's, just as it has also been the case with many other families. Some families have women in their 40's who have had anywhere from 5 to 8 kids already......and though some of them are older, the rest are very much "dependents"/children. Have some friends who are in that very position, where the family was made of 6 hardy boys---the oldest in his mid 20's/30's, while some of the others were in their teenage years and the youngest was STILL a child. And many other families beside that which can qualify.

Regardless----with Mary, as in those days life expectancy very low, she would have been regarded as 'getting on up there", even elderly to a degree----and hence, why Jesus charged his disciple John to look after her his own home so she would not be considered destitute.

would have to say that you don't agree with me (from your posts that is) because I said that some of the siblings would likely have been old enough to contribute, to which you disagree, that would leave only one of two options, well, let's be totally fair, 3 options, 1. you didn't read what I said and just argue for the sake of arguing, 2. you believe that Jesus siblings were all minors according to Jewish culture, or 3. you believe that Jesus had no siblings that were able to contribute because all His siblings were either incapable of helping, or lazy....which is the truth here?

As said/OFFERED before, one can always consider QUOTing ME DIRECTLY as to what it was that I said---as I tried as best as possible to make clear that Jesus could have easily had siblings old enough to contribute and yet also have others who were still dependent on him/his provision...while also having others who may not have been economically ready/responsible enough to be trusted.

.
​

I think you mean to accuse me of not providing commentaries to support what I am saying, only problem is that would 1. be dishonest, and 2. does not evidence a conclusion only another opinion. I am suggesting we use logic here, something you seem totally opposed to.

As said before, the only real issue is with shunning the reality of scholarly review---of those who actually know the culture, went to seminary/study many of the things not readily apparent in a text. And that using logic must be consistent with first understanding how the culture described in a text actually was (i.e. archelogical evidence, historical backdrop, cultural norms, etc). Otherwise, we'll err...........just as has been the case when people view the scripture through a 21st century/Westernized lens and the ways we see things "logically" rather than understanding how they actually acted then. By your logic, that's not important when it comes to reading of the text---and being opinionated strongly as you are, it is not surprising. For by your logic, one must throw out things such as "The Expositor's Bible Commentary"---or, for that matter, "Bible.org", "Life Application Study Bible", "Jewish New Testament Commentary" (as it relates to understanding from Jewish perspective what the customs were in the Bible/how they were written)

I never questioned this, and when I said all this, you disagreed, so if you disagree with what I said, I can only assume that you are saying something different, that is how agreement and disagreement works, so either you agree with what I said and are arguing for the sake of argument, or, you disagree with what I said and either previously or not are being dishonest in what you actually believe. I won't even ask which it is in that you won't admit to either I am sure.....remember, this whole thing started because you were talking about Jesus profession of carpenter and I said, very simply, be careful, Jesus saw God as His father not Joseph..

As said before, I said that it was possiblbe/probable that not all of the members of Jesus's family were working hard---and even if they were, Christ still had the weight of being a hard worker/building up resources since primary care fell upon his shoulders as the Firstborn. And as goes the OP Topic, I was seeking to make a simple case that the disciples were also HARD workers/industrious and had sharp business sense...to which the side discussion began of how you felt their business was in shambles and I argued counter to that they were not foolish enough to allow that.




That was evident in the first posting I made and many others, as when I was talking to Brother Wilely Coyote---before extended discussion between us ever began, as seen in #132 and #131. And if one agreed with that, all they needed to do was say "I see where you're coming from" before progressing further

Additionally, this debacle did not begin with the comment on "Jesus being a carpenter"---as prior to the initial comment you made when I was addressing another on Jesus owning a job/working to support a family, there was the action on YOUR part to come after what I had clearly posted and not stopping at all for asking what it was that I meant...or simply saying clearly where you agreed.