Posted on 12/26/2009 6:09:29 AM PST by markomalley
Each Christmas, Christians tell stories about the poor baby Jesus born in a lowly manger because there was no room in the inn.
But the Rev. C. Thomas Anderson, senior pastor of the Living Word Bible Church in Mesa, Arizona, preaches a version of the Christmas story that says baby Jesus wasn't so poor after all.
Anderson says Jesus couldn't have been poor because he received lucrative gifts -- gold, frankincense and myrrh -- at birth. Jesus had to be wealthy because the Roman soldiers who crucified him gambled for his expensive undergarments. Even Jesus' parents, Mary and Joseph, lived and traveled in style, he says.
"Mary and Joseph took a Cadillac to get to Bethlehem because the finest transportation of their day was a donkey," says Anderson. "Poor people ate their donkey. Only the wealthy used it as transportation."
Many Christians see Jesus as the poor, itinerant preacher who had "no place to lay his head." But as Christians gather around the globe this year to celebrate the birth of Jesus, another group of Christians are insisting that Jesus' beginnings weren't so humble.
They say that Jesus was never poor -- and neither should his followers be. Their claim is embedded in the doctrine known as the prosperity gospel, which holds that God rewards the faithful with financial prosperity and spiritual gifts.
A clash of gospels?
The prosperity gospel has attracted plenty of critics. But popular televangelists such as the late Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin and, today, Creflo Dollar have built megachurches and a global audience by equating piety with prosperity.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Tsk tsk, GS, you are making a leap that Evil Kneivel would not attempt. Discussing mythology is probably more appropriate in another forum.
Mythology written in the middle ages, totally void of supporting evidence is still fiction - just like the abundance of other myths that developed in that time frame. That the phoenicians sailed as far as England doesn’t matter - fiction is fiction.
What mythology is that?
Your questions can be answered by following upthread, if you are still confused try google - but don't believe everything you read on the internet.
Ah, so you admit they sailed to England. Ok, here's a bible verse for you:
Jdg 5:17 Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches.
Next questions: What types of ships were these? What was the tribe of Dan doing in them?
There's a lot of stuff on Google...what mythology is it that you are now referring? You've mentioned several on this thread, I have mentioned none.
Have you ever noticed that just prior to Christmas and Easter, CNN releases some bit of “news” challenging the Christian faith (secret Gospels, new crappy Bible translations, amazing speculations about Jesus being married/gay/rich/poor/an accountant/Swedish/etc), but no other religion’s holy days are subject to such breaking “news?”
Sigh. I miss the Weekly World News.
One of my college perfesser's research actually got to be the basis of a WWN article. He was so proud!
And so - there is no evidence other than a medieval fairy tail to support you claim. Show me proof - not one of your weekly world news citations.
Oh thats right - you believe in unicorns and little people - or am I getting that confused with the JoA myth?
ROTFLAICGU.
Jdg 5:17 Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches.Next questions: What types of ships were these? What was the tribe of Dan doing in them?
Ahh. As I thought.
BTW, Phoenicians? What The Hay?
Vehicle by which pseudo-historians try to lend credibility to myth.
You refuse to answer my question about Dan in the ships because you know what it has to do with Joseph.
You can't answer my question so you falsely attribute.
What?
How does the history of the Phoenicians lend credibility to Joseph being Jesus' uncle?
Oh yes, forgot your anglo-israeli filters were on. May be they were fishing, in any case, the verse predates by hundreds of years and has absolutely nothing to do with your claims. Romans had an excellent road network - could have walked as well.
No, just your pseudohistory - not that is the only 'false' thing here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.