Jesus' background

[gurlygurl2004]

Okay I know the bible says he was the son of a carpreter, and possibly born in a rural area. So that description would have made him poor, common, and not connected (business wise). But there's another account that said he's a descendent of King David so he could have had some wealth and connection.

He's painted as an outcast and insider that you either love or hate (in the bible) or love to hate, lol. People did flock to hear his message. He preached against the corruption of the church and is probably more socialistic in nature than capitalistic.

My question is, do you think Christ was a poor commoner who had to work hard to get people to listen and pay attention to him, since he couldn't buy anyone's love? Or do you think he could have been well off than some Christians may think?

Seeing in our modern world and studying the ancient world's ways of how class systems worked do you think if he was well connected, that had anything to do with how well he did in life and death?

P.S. Of course it didn't really end well, he was crucified none the less :lol:

[wtfidka]

Is it funny that he was crucified? You could at least show some respect even if you dont believe.

[LostSheep]

i don't think it was meant as laughing at that, i think it was just an ironic kind of :lol: .

(actually it did kind of work out well in the end, didn't it, after the crucifixion?) ... anyway.

The descent from David, which Matthew and Luke make a big thing about, i think is probably an attempt to demonstrate that he was the promised Messiah, that he could trace his ancestry all the way back, to try to make it look more ligitimate in the eyes of the Jewish ruling classes. (incidentally, have you noticed a flaw there... it goes back through the generations, saying David was the father of x, who was the father of y, who was the father of .... *deep breath* ... who was the father of Joseph, who was the father of ... oh, wait a minute. :huh:

Anyway, back to the point, I don't think he ever did have much in the way of property or material wealth, he seemed to spend most of his life, or his career anyway, wandering about, staying with whoever would put him up. (Though he was pretty generous with entertainment, inviting all sorts of people to dinner, didn't he; but always at whoever's house he was staying at the time.) And there was all the teaching about rich men and camels, etc.

personally i think it was the church as it grew that tried to show that Jesus was actually quite well off and didn't object to wealth since that was what the church was mostly interested in.

[Paracelsus]

I think a little more research is called for on your part - both your premises are incorrect. Where does the Bible say anything about Jesus' family being poor? If you think about it, they probably weren't - if Joseph was, in fact, a Carpenter, then there is no reason that he was not comfortably off - after all they could afford to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to celebrate Jesus' Bar Mitzvah! Equally, being "of the house and line of David" does not mean or imply that they were rich, merely that they belonged to a particular tribe. One can be a direct, male line descendent of someone incredibly rich, and still be poor, either because one's ancestors were removed from the throne and taken into captivity in another country, or simply due to primogeniture - if you're not the eldest son you don't get the moolah.
During his preaching of the Kerygma, social interaction is comparatively unimportant - the gospels regularly stress his interaction with all kinds of people, from social outcasts to foreigners, samaritans, even romans... Jesus is within the traditional mold of the wandering, radical rabbis like Akiva - continuing the prophetic tradition of attempting to bring about a combination of social reform, justice, and an individual appreciation of God.

[gurlygurl2004]

I think a little more research is called for on your part - both your premises are incorrect. Where does the Bible say anything about Jesus' family being poor? If you think about it, they probably weren't - if Joseph was, in fact, a Carpenter, then there is no reason that he was not comfortably off - after all they could afford to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to celebrate Jesus' Bar Mitzvah! Equally, being "of the house and line of David" does not mean or imply that they were rich, merely that they belonged to a particular tribe. One can be a direct, male line descendent of someone incredibly rich, and still be poor, either because one's ancestors were removed from the throne and taken into captivity in another country, or simply due to primogeniture - if you're not the eldest son you don't get the moolah.
During his preaching of the Kerygma, social interaction is comparatively unimportant - the gospels regularly stress his interaction with all kinds of people, from social outcasts to foreigners, samaritans, even romans... Jesus is within the traditional mold of the wandering, radical rabbis like Akiva - continuing the prophetic tradition of attempting to bring about a combination of social reform, justice, and an individual appreciation of God.



Those are some good points. I think modern society would think they were poor because in today's society, carpenters by trade usually don't make much money, a interior designer would make better money. Maybe Joseph was that :idea:

Back in the day, they would be considered merchants, which I was a sort of middle class set. So they could've just been comfortable.

I think in an ironic way, the modern Christian church actually likes the underdog because they have that complex. Even though in reality they create underdogs.

And yes he was the ideal person, he wasn't class, gender, or race conscious. He talked to anyone.

[Paracelsus]

[QUOTE=gurlygurl2004;3092651]I think in an ironic way, the modern Christian church actually likes the underdog because they have that complex. Even though in reality they create underdogs.
QUOTE]

I think that you are misinterpreting the view that the liberation theologians put forward of "God's option for the poor". It is pretty clear that throughout the bible God is interested in, and primarily concerned with justice for everyone -

Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
the alien or the poor. In your hearts do
not think evil of each other.'
Zechariah 7:10

"The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."
Luke 3:11

A poor man's field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away.
Proverbs 13:23

A poor man's field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away.
Proverbs 13:23

He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.
Proverbs 19:17

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.
Deuteronomy 15:7

He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor.
Samuel 2:8


& then of course you have the universalist emphasis in Luke's gospel which consistently stresses Jesus' own concern for the poor -

I don't think it's the result of a complex!

[Thunder]

i don't think it was meant as laughing at that, i think it was just an ironic kind of :lol: .

(actually it did kind of work out well in the end, didn't it, after the crucifixion?) ... anyway.

The descent from David, which Matthew and Luke make a big thing about, i think is probably an attempt to demonstrate that he was the promised Messiah, that he could trace his ancestry all the way back, to try to make it look more ligitimate in the eyes of the Jewish ruling classes. (incidentally, have you noticed a flaw there... it goes back through the generations, saying David was the father of x, who was the father of y, who was the father of .... *deep breath* ... who was the father of Joseph, who was the father of ... oh, wait a minute. :huh:

Anyway, back to the point, I don't think he ever did have much in the way of property or material wealth, he seemed to spend most of his life, or his career anyway, wandering about, staying with whoever would put him up. (Though he was pretty generous with entertainment, inviting all sorts of people to dinner, didn't he; but always at whoever's house he was staying at the time.) And there was all the teaching about rich men and camels, etc.

personally i think it was the church as it grew that tried to show that Jesus was actually quite well off and didn't object to wealth since that was what the church was mostly interested in.Could you elaborate on this, I was raised Roman Catholic and I have no idea what you mean.

[Thunder]

[quote=gurlygurl2004;3092651]I think in an ironic way, the modern Christian church actually likes the underdog because they have that complex. Even though in reality they create underdogs.
QUOTE]

I think that you are misinterpreting the view that the liberation theologians put forward of "God's option for the poor". It is pretty clear that throughout the bible God is interested in, and primarily concerned with justice for everyone -

Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless,
the alien or the poor. In your hearts do
not think evil of each other.'
Zechariah 7:10

"The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same."
Luke 3:11

A poor man's field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away.
Proverbs 13:23

A poor man's field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away.
Proverbs 13:23

He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.
Proverbs 19:17

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.
Deuteronomy 15:7

He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor.
Samuel 2:8


& then of course you have the universalist emphasis in Luke's gospel which consistently stresses Jesus' own concern for the poor -

I don't think it's the result of a complex!

Don't forget "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven".

[Thunder]

I personally don't think His family was poor, but I think He was humble enough to live in the lowest part of class. I don't think He took a huge part in wealth, but tried to live a life in a low class to reach humanity. He was born in a manger, how much lower than that can you get, ya know? And I do think He was born in a manger for a purpose, to enter the world in the most humble state instead of being in a big fancy palace being born by a mid-wife (if they even had those back then).

So yes I do think that He worked very hard to get people to listen to Him and maybe that's why a lot of people didn't pay attention to Him, because He wasn't some flashy guy He wasn't as alluring as someone who had money to offer. He was at the lowest point and was that way for a reason.Jesus' birth in a cave/manger/stable was symbolic. My take on his actual status is that Joseph and Mary were middle/working class (not rich, not poor) who did ok and that his position was not at the bottom socially. Many refer to him as a carpenter but there is no scriptural proof that I have read that he ever lifted a hammer. I am of the belief that he spent the "Missing years" between his 13th birthday and his re-emergence in the scriptures at age 30 studying in the east, India, Tibet, Nepal.

[dragoncrone]

I see no realistic comparison between Jesus' socio-economic background and present-day perceptions of wealth and commerce. To me, it's like asking how the dinosaurs would have coped with freeway onramps or something.

[gurlygurl2004]

Those bible passages about the poor makes me think Jesus had a more socialistic/communistic view of how society should run. Jesus probably did come from a working class family with a royal background (just because your ancestors were royalty or aristocracy doesn't actually mean you'll get any money) (Kind of like in my case, some of ancestors came from aristocracy but we dont have that much money :lol: )

I do think Christ was a world citizen, I think if he came across the right person he could appeal to the kings of the world all the way down to the homeless. Of course that doesn't mean either man is interpretting his word correctly.