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 ...
Father Zuhlsdorf is a tremendous blessing.
All this time I was thinking that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room at the inn, not because they couldnt afford one.
Wasnt there a crowd on the move at the time because hey had to register in their home towns.?
I doubtJesus family was rich, but I gather they were of Middle income range. Joseph had a trade after all.
All this time I was thinking that Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room at the inn, not because they couldnt afford one.
Wasnt there a crowd on the move at the time because hey had to register in their home towns.?
I doubt Jesus family was rich, but I gather they were of Middle income range. Joseph had a trade after all.
Nothing like these scam-artist “Christians” trying to gull the gullible into sending them more of their Social Security dollars.
Pointing out just one example of his ignorance of Scripture, Jesus was approximately two years old when the Magi arrived with their gifts. That is why King Herod ordered the murder of all baby boys two-years-old and under.
Jesus said, “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head.” (Matthew 8:20) These scammers depend on ignorant Christians who don’t read The Book, but only watch TV.
I didn't want to come right out and say it, but you are dead on. I see it all the time. People who can least afford it sending in their last dollars in the hope they will become more wealthy. Well someone sure is becoming more wealthy from this philosophy, and living in quite wealthy houses.
Joseph was a capitalist!
Was Jesus wealthy?
Who cares...I celebrate His life, words and deeds....
Trying to sew more divisions among Christians. And trying, in every way possible, to make the Gospel appear silly.
All attacks against the Gospel are not necessarily frontal attacks.
The Gospel says there was no room, implying that if there was room, they could have afforded a room.
If Mary and Joseph were actually wealthy, they could have paid an existing occupant enough to let them take over his room.
Ate their donkey? Does it have cloven hooves? Nope. How about chewing its cut? Also no. Therefore a donkey is not kosher. Jews don't eat their donkeys. Also a donkey is a working animal. Eating it would be like eating your seed corn - you might do it in times of famine as an act of desperation when everyone is struggling for food.
I love arguing that Jesus' family had to stay in a stable because they were poor. The purpose for the census was taxation, so Mary and Joseph weren't poor - they were being audited. That usually leaves social justice leftists' heads spinning.
How is this a “disgusting attack on Christianity”? He makes valid points and it doesn’t negatively impact on Jesus in any way. Can you only be a wise teacher if you’re poor?
His point about the three kings’ gifts makes sense. I’m sure Mary and Joseph didn’t just toss it in the trash after the kings left.
No my point is; this is a for real debate within Christianity. The division exists and if you don’t want to see it that is fine, but it doesn’t make it go away.
The prosperity Gospel, some feel is the true attack upon Christianity, as it is teaching a false gospel. Would you have it that no one cover this debate? If that is the case, then we might as well stop teaching about the formation of the early church, or the reformation.
Jesus was a journayman. When you hire a guy to repoint your chimneys he doesn’t show up in a Ferrari, but neither does he show up shoeless.
Works for his daily bread. Charitable enough to share it. Divine enough to multiply it.
The article assumes a lot, but does not give data supporting the assumptions.
The Magi’s gifts for example. Gold- how much gold? A trunk load, or a couple of grains in a tiny box- a token? The same with the frankincense and myrrh- how much, and how much was it worth at the time? How long would such riches have lasted a family of three? Certainly not till Jesus’ adulthood.
And UNDERGARMENTS?!?! How valuable could ANY underpants
( used at that) ever be in any culture? Perhaps the gambling was more about SHAMING- stripping someone of their last vestige of humanity?
Talk about reaching for an excuse to suck money out of people for another Rolex or Rolls in the name of ‘Christianity’! Man....people like these preachers are gonna burrrrrnnn!
How is this an attack?
The article appears to be making the argument that there are the two extremes: prosperity gospel Jesus who was a rich man versus liberation theology Jesus. That's how it frames the argument. Both are heresies (IMHO).
Would you have it that no one cover this debate?
I would rather not have a secular news service cover a debate between two heresies...which implies that one of the two, and no alternative, are right. (And, frankly, it appears to me that the article is biased toward the "prosperity gospel Jesus" caricature)
If that is the case, then we might as well stop teaching about the formation of the early church, or the reformation.
If CNN is going to cover it, that prospect might not be all that bad an idea.
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.