It's been common knowledge, passed down through history, that Jesus was a poor man, But when you analyse this presumptions logically and critically, it seems not to make sense.

From the common principles of economics: it is not possible for a person who controls any thing of great value to be poor. This is simple economic and scientific fact. Anybody who has any talent or product that is IN HIGH DEMAND CANNOT be poor, even if that talent or product is just water. Yes, water is supplied by nature and free yet people have managed to build multi-billion dollar industries on the supply, refining and packaging of this same water.

So what talents did Jesus have in his time? Firstly,He was an orator. We know what happens to great orators, they command a huge fans, they get elected into political offices, whether they be student union offices, presidential offices(did I hear Barack Obama?? Tony Blair?? Adams Oshiomole?? Rochas Okorocha??), etc. They are made ambassadors of huge businesses and non-profit organizations. These are positions of power and with power comes wealth because the fan-base will contribute time, effort and of-course money to ensure that their polity increases in power.

Secondly, He was a miracle worker, a performer of signs and wonders. Well I don't need to persuade anybody that signs and wonders brings wealth. Whether these signs and wonders are spiritual or scientific, they have made millionaires and billionaires and the examples abound everywhere. Talk about Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, T.B.Joshua, Oyakhilome, Adeboye, etc.

So Jesus was one of the greatest(If not the greatest) orators and miracle workers ever seen or heard of, his influence still persists today after 2000-years, How is it possible that he was was poor?? A man who persuaded 12 men to leave their livelihoods to become his disciples, following him in his journeys around Isreal, How did he manage feed, clothe and house them? Everywhere he went to speak, there'd be huge crowds. People embark on journeys just to hear him talk and perhaps recieve some healing. Now if they committed their time, efforts, journeys to see or hear him, why would they not contribute money as well?? Why would he need a treasurer if there was no form of wealth to be controlled?? Now I'm assuming that Jesus did not charge for his speeches and miracles, even at that, he was never short of people offering him free accommodation, free food, free clothes and every precious thing, (and of-course money ) etc just to have his company. So it just doesn't make sense to continue to believe that Jesus was poor in the sense that we interpret poverty today, and in the same sense that they teach in churches.

So Jesus was not poor, he was rich. Mainly from charity.

Reasons:
He was a gifted orator (one of the best according to you)
He was a miracle worker (and miracle workers you gave as examples are millionaires and billionaires).

Wasnt it the same Jesus who told someone to sell all he had and give to the poor?
Same Jesus that spoke of how much easier it would be for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven?

Am I missing something here?

jayriginal: So Jesus was not poor, he was rich. Mainly from charity.

You err, not understanding your own words . Charity is help rendered to somebody who is unable(either for lack of physical strength or some skill or position) to provide for himself. But clearly Jesus did not fall into this classification. Perhaps you should use your dictionary more . Whenever people offered free accommodation, food, and other valuables, they were in exchange(or appreciation) for his company, teachings and works.

Wasnt it the same Jesus who told someone to sell all he had and give to the poor?
Same Jesus that spoke of how much easier it would be for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven?

Am I missing something here?

This time you err, not understanding scriptures . Persons of insight know not to take Jesus's instructions as literal but symbolic. A rich man according to Jesus has nothing to do with financial wealth. Rather it refers to a person who is rich(invested) in human traditions and values(because they are human values, therefore he's popular and thus he's rich. got it??), he thinks being good in human terms is equivalent to godly righteousness. A rich man is someone who in his personal/religious life is more interested in conforming to popular culture and mindset than in being truthful to himself. It is also someone who believes he can attain godhood be keeping the laws of Moses, etc.

Are we trying to be cute here?

You are the one in dire need of a dictionary.

Everything I said is inferred from you post. Now if I am missing something, kindly point it out.

You are making the case that Jesus was not poor. Your case is that given the qualities he is said to possess, he cannot be poor. You even gave instances of others like him in modern society who are billionaires (obviously ignoring the fact that NONE of them live on charity).

okeyxyz, does a rich man live on charity? Read this

Mathew 8:20
Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has no place to lay his head

Whether you want to accept it or not, Jesus relied on charity since he was not working, for if the people were obliged to take care of him, then that would be some kind of work (preach, teach and heal for food).

Since they did it of their own volition, it qualifies as charity.

Now, if you wish to make the case that it was not charity, then how did he make a living?

Oh, and that your demarcation between literal and symbolic will not wash here. Everyone has their own criteria to fit their doctrine. For a minute, I thought you were going to talk about a mythical gate called the "eye of a needle" which was very narrow and bla bla bla.


On a final note, I went through your post again and I see that you are doing a lot of assuming and inferring so this whole argument is moot anyway. I do want to do my own inferring and assuming too (you cannot monopolize that).

I would say he was not only poor, he had the "mentality" of a poor man. He cursed the fig tree just because he was hungry knowing fully well that the season had not come. That is the act of a poor hungry man!

^^^
It seems you are hell bent on ensuring that this word "charity" sticks, ehh?? Perhaps you derive some personal satisfaction in playing this ping pong of charity or no-charity, but if it helps make the point to you that Jesus could not have been poor, then so be it. Happy??

Again: "The son of man has no place to lay his head..." is not literal as you(and everybody through the years) interpret it. It simply means: he finds no place in our worldly systems and traditions as worthy of God's approval as a standard for godliness. I explained this principle in my first reply you. Well, a little bit more iteration shows my consistency and emphasis on not taking it literal .

And if you are going to continue hammering that somebody who is a such gifted orator and exceptional miracle worker as understood from bible records, was poor, then I can't help you there. At least consider that this belief in his poverty doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever, given his 12 disciples, multitude of followers and fame. These are the perfect settings for anybody to control power and wealth.

okeyxyz,

was he working? How was he sustaining himself? Did he demand anything for his company/teaching/healing?

^^^
Do you not consider full time preaching and miracles as some kind of work? I don't know if he demanded payments for his works but we know he did get offers and provisions for his company, words and miracles. If you want to call it charity, then so be it. My point is such a person in this position CANNOT be poor. And if you still think he's poor, maybe you could give some sound logic to support this possibility of his "poverty". I list the scenario for you again: He's an orator. He works miracles. He has 12 disciples. He has multitude of followers. He's so famous that everywhere he goes people are making offers(charities ) of house, food, drink, money, etc. How do you explain his poverty then? besides swallowing hook line and sinker, what we'd been taught to believe?

okeyxyz:

This time you err, not understanding scriptures . Persons of insight know not to take Jesus's instructions as literal but symbolic. A rich man according to Jesus has nothing to do with financial wealth. Rather it refers to a person who is rich(invested) in human traditions and values(because they are human values, therefore he's popular and thus he's rich. got it??), he thinks being good in human terms is equivalent to godly righteousness. A rich man is someone who in his personal/religious life is more interested in conforming to popular culture and mindset than in being truthful to himself. It is also someone who believes he can attain godhood be keeping the laws of Moses, etc.

SPAG at its finest. . .

Lol.

By work, I mean paid work. Something that you do and get paid for. You know what I mean so dont make me go further.

If he did not demand for money for whatever he was doing but people were offering him, then they were doing so on their own, not because they were obliged to. Does a non poor man (because you have not explicitly said he was rich) rely on other people to "use their mind" (since you dont like the term "charity" )?

okeyxyz: ^^^
Do you not consider full time preaching and miracles as some kind of work? I don't know if he demanded payments for his works but we know he did get offers and provisions for his company, words and miracles. If you want to call it charity, then so be it. My point is such a person in this position CANNOT be poor. And if you still think he's poor, maybe you could give some sound logic to support this possibility of his "poverty". I list the scenario for you again: He's an orator. He works miracles. He has 12 disciples. He has multitude of followers. He's so famous that everywhere he goes people are making offers(charities ) of house, food, drink, money, etc. How do you explain his poverty then? besides swallowing hook line and sinker, what we'd been taught to believe?

You are judging something from thousands of years ago in the past with the mindset of today....it wont work.

Consider that jesus was a jew....(lower class at that time)

Consider he was a carpenter....

Consider that he felt sympathy and empathy for the poor....(remember in the ancient times, one's class was of much more signifiance than anything...the poor simply were ignored in all societies and used literally as guinea pigs.)

Consider also that he was only known because of his controversy at that time...even with his "miracles" he was considered a nuissance who was made fun of by ppl of his own class, was only invited to speak to powerful ppl to be mocked and ridiculed, and was eventually used to teach the masses a lesson by way of his execution.

"Jesus" did not have the "clout" back then as he did now in terms of respect nor in wealth.

"Jesus" was indeed a poor man who was rich in wisdom and wisdom only.

Kails, he was a carpenter but he wasnt even doing that.

jayriginal: By work, I mean paid work. Something that you do and get paid for. You know what I mean so dont make me go further.

If he did not demand for money for whatever he was doing but people were offering him, then they were doing so on their own, not because they were obliged to. Does a non poor man (because you have not explicitly said he was rich) rely on other people to "use their mind" (since you dont like the term "charity" )?

Does money fall from heaven? Surely everybody who's ever struck wealth has made it off other people. Why should Jesus be the exception?? And I'd already conceded the word "charity" to you but it seems you are not satisfied with that. Do you have an agenda to accomplish? Perhaps you think the word "charity" is some form of crime or a derogatory term??

jayriginal: Kails, he was a carpenter but he wasnt even doing that.

okeyxyz:

Does money fall from heaven? Surely everybody who's ever struck wealth has made it off other people.

Yes. However, most made it by earning that money. In other words, they were paid a fee for work done. Some sort of contractual arrangement anyway. I say most because I do not want to include those who made their wealth illegally.

Why should Jesus be the exception?? And I'd already conceded the word "charity" to you but it seems you are not satisfied with that. Do you have an agenda to accomplish? Perhaps you think the word "charity" is some form of crime or a derogatory term??

Its not a derogatory term. If you rely on charity or on the benevolence of others, you cannot call yourself non poor.

And poor is not a derogatory term either.

*Kails*:


You are judging something from thousands of years ago in the past with the mindset of today....it wont work.

Human nature has never changed over the years. The only things that have changed are the means to accomplish our desires and values.

Consider that jesus was a jew....(lower class at that time)

Consider that he felt sympathy and empathy for the poor....(remember in the ancient times, one's class was of much more signifiance than anything...the poor simply were ignored in all societies and used literally as guinea pigs.)

Consider he was a carpenter....

One's origins does not necessarily determine where he ends up. David was of humble birth, yet he rose to become king of Israel. So Jesus's humble beginnings should not prevent his accomplishments.

Consider also that he was only known because of his controversy at that time...even with his "miracles" he was considered a nuissance who was made fun of by ppl of his own class, was only invited to speak to powerful ppl to be mocked and ridiculed, and was eventually used to teach the masses a lesson by way of his execution.

"Jesus" did not have the "clout" back then as he did now in terms of respect nor in wealth.

"Jesus" was indeed a poor man who was rich in wisdom and wisdom only.

His controversy was a threat to the ruling class(the pharisees, etc) back then. So how is it possible that he was a nuissance to them if not that he has some influence on the society?? How does a poor man exert such power that threatens the authority of the ruling class that they conspire in every form of scheme to discredit and eventually kill him?? Does a poor insignificant fellow, with no political clout or potentials cause the ruling class sleepless nights in plotting how to defeat and make an example of him??

Just evaluate the case logically, regardless of your religious(or non-religious) leanings.

jayriginal:
Yes. However, most made it by earning that money. In other words, they were paid a fee for work done. Some sort of contractual arrangement anyway. I say most because I do not want to include those who made their wealth illegally.

There's a difference between a gift for charity and a gift for favour(in Jesus's case). There's a saying that; "You do not visit a king with empty hands..". People who made these gifts to jesus were doing it as a way of soliciting favour from him, So he has earned the gifts by his clout as a teacher, a prophet and miracle worker. Even people who give bribes do so to gain favour from persons of with power and authority.

Its not a derogatory term. If you rely on charity or on the benevolence of others, you cannot call yourself non poor.

And poor is not a derogatory term either.

Jesus was definitely non-poor because he had the influence and "power" to make these people respect(fear??) him, such that they wanted to be on his good side. Thus the gifts.

okeyxyz:

There's a difference between a gift for charity and a gift for favour(in Jesus's case). There's a saying that; "You do not visit a king with empty hands..". People who made these gifts to jesus were doing it as a way of soliciting favour from him, So he has earned the gifts by his clout as a teacher, a prophet and miracle worker. Even people who give bribes do so to gain favour from persons of with power and authority.

Actually if it was a gift for favour, I am pretty sure he would have refused those gifts, the same way he refused to perform miracles on demand (as a sign).

Jesus was definitely non-poor because he had the influence and "power" to make these people respect(fear??) him, such that they wanted to be on his good side. Thus the gifts.

Ah! I wanted to say this earlier but restrained myself.

Maybe he did. Maybe he used his "power" to make these people give him gifts

Give it up man no point in remixing this. We can all take liberties with bible passages. I could tell you that Peter didnt really cut off an ear in the literal sense but the ear represents the stony hearts of the pharisees, and Jesus healed the ear because he wanted the prophecy to be fulfilled etc

We can have a filled day coming up with these kind of shenanigans. Jesus was a wanderer, moving from place to place and relying on the charity of his audience.

Thats is all.

@op

You said Bill Gates performed miracle. do you mean microsoft? Hey scientific works are based on facts and not wishful thinking. So you aint different from others twisting the word of God to drive your own point across.

okeyxyz:
Secondly, He was a miracle worker, a performer of signs and wonders. Well I don't need to persuade anybody that signs and wonders brings wealth. Whether these signs and wonders are spiritual or scientific, they have made millionaires and billionaires and the examples abound everywhere. Talk about Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, T.B.Joshua, Oyakhilome, Adeboye, etc.

babaearly: @op

You said Bill Gates performed miracle. do you mean microsoft? Hey scientific works are based on facts and not wishful thinking. So you aint different from others twisting the word of God to drive your own point across.

He was speaking figuratively. He doesnt mean Bill Gates does voodoo afterall a wise man once said "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". You know where the term "wiz" comes from dont you?

Before all that he was a son of a carpenter, which back in those days yielded good money. Also anyone turning water to wine could never e poor!

biafranqueen: Before all that he was a son of a carpenter, which back in those days yielded good money. Also anyone turning water to wine could never e poor!

Precisely the principle I am drumming here.

Anybody with any form of useful, in high demand skills/gifts as Jesus was can not possibly be poor. Our believe in his poverty is either a misunderstanding or deliberate mischief by our teachers.