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 ...
Absolutely none. In the 1220s, the monks at Glastonbury produced forged documents tracing their religious foundation to contemporaries of Jesus, including St Philip. There is no mention made at all in these documents of Joseph of Arimathea, as there certainly would have been if British tradition had linked him to the foundation at Glastonbury. Nor is there any mention of this mission in the earliest historical work on the conversion of Britain, Bede's eighth-century book History of the English Church and People, nor indeed is it mentioned in any historical sources until the legend appears in the works of French poets. Nor do any of the early church historians make any mention of JoA's myth.
There is more evidence for the easter bunny than there is for this mythology.
Ah, so you admit that there was travel between Cornwall (remember, this thread is about whether there was wealth in Jesus' family, namely Joseph of Arimathea) and the area of Israel next to where Phoenicia was. OK, when did the tin mines of Cornwall begin operation?
Do you believe JoA brought Jesus to speak there with the miners?
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.Ah, so you admit that there was travel between Cornwall (remember, this thread is about whether there was wealth in Jesus' family, namely Joseph of Arimathea) and the area of Israel next to where Phoenicia was. OK, when did the tin mines of Cornwall begin operation?
The leap from "could have been" to "was" is unwarranted.
Nathanael didn't know Jesus even though their towns were five miles apart, and that Jesus was the only one asked for a stranger's tax with the fish-coin miracle. This tells me that Joseph the carpenter died when Jesus was young and whoever it was that took care of Jesus had him away a lot. At the crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea claimed Jesus's body when every other disciple fled showing he was related to Jesus and must have been his guardian from when he was younger. A look at the history of Christianity shows Britain developed just about as fast as the places near Jerusalem. Looking at the history of southern England establishes that the Phoenicians had voyaged to England to mine for tin in their whole history so the route was well established. Dan had ships, they learned the tin routes from the Phoenicians making the connection to Israel and Judea, and therefore later to Joseph. Many artifacts show than a boy and his uncle are the ones that spread Christianity in that area even before the ministry in Jerusalem. Everyone knows that Jesus was mostly gone from history as a boy, it's easy to see where he was and how Britain got a huge jump on the teachings of Christ.
...nor indeed is it mentioned in any historical sources until the legend appears in the works of French poets. Nor do any of the early church historians make any mention of JoA's myth.
Tertullian says around 200AD that Christianity was well-established in Britain. It was spread there somehow.
Sure, spread the Word. Jesus ministry in Jerusalem lasted a very short time and had to be published by the disciples rather than Jesus Himself. Jesus ministry to the outposts went on unobstructed for 18 years. It's a good plan.
So the Phoenicians counquered the Mediterranean for 1000 years but couldn't pull off a voyage up the coast of Spain and France to Cornwall. That's illogical. Even your friend admits there was a trade route.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Jesus was not teaching until he was baptized by John the Baptist - not before. No jumps here excepts leaps in logic.
Tertullian says around 200AD that Christianity was well-established in Britain. It was spread there somehow
Then Tertullian is no help - rgumentum ex silentio. Tertullian does not speak of JoA
Thanks for showing all your heretical confession. This is contrary to all that the bible clearly states. But not surprising for and anglo-israeli
Did you not see post 76?
The son of God laid on the couch for 18 years?
Then Tertullian is no help - rgumentum ex silentio. Tertullian does not speak of JoA
Tertullium says Christianity was well-established in Britain long before 200AD. If not a rich merchant, then who?
Also, a warning posted by me should be heeded by anyone involved in the sidebar. This is based on the principle of two wrongs do not make a right.
Click on my profile page for more guidelines to the Religion Forum.
How is this contrary to the bible?
I don’t understand why it’s OK for GZ to call me a heretic, wacko, and a prosperity gospeller, those posts are kept on. The only thing I said was that he was a hypocrite for resorting to namecalling at the same time registering complaints with you, and he continues to do so. “Hypocrite” is the only word I’ve used against him.
I read your page. You said watch pronouns regarding "you". How is post 130 acceptable? "Your heretical confession...".
Often, when one belief spawns from another both condemn the other in the harshest terms possible, e.g. anathema, heretic, cult, apostate, Satanic. Such terms are often part of the official documents and deeply held beliefs, so it is not unusual for the terms to be raised in "open" Religion Forum debate.
Likewise, he called "Anglo-Israelis" wacko. That is a condemnation of a group of believers not an individual Freeper.
Since you took that statement personally, it appears you consider yourself to be "Anglo-Israeli." If that is the case, since that belief is often associated with Christian Identity which is white supremacist and therefore expressly forbidden on this forum - I must now ask you to clarify what exactly you do believe about the races, Israel and the Jews.
We do have the water-into-wine miracle at the wedding party...was that not a teaching episode?
No, the Son of God supported His mother like what was expected of the son of a widow - chk your old testament for those requirements. That doesn't include gallavanting around the world.
Tertullium says Christianity was well-established in Britain long before 200AD. If not a rich merchant, then who?
BTW, cite Tertullian's specific writing this is stated in .
The advent of Christianity can be ascribed to the Roman invasions and their somewhat precarious occupation of Britain. Wherever there were Roman settlements it is likely that there were Christians - perhaps some of the soldiers, perhaps traders attracted to the settlements. Britain officially became a frontier province of the Empire with the invasion of the emperor Claudius' troops in 43 AD. Christianity spread very quickly EVERY direction.
Go back to your bible, the wedding in Cana occurred AFTER Jesus' baptism, which is considered to be the start of his earthly ministry.
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.