Was Jesus rich

Many scholars suggest that the family of Jesus was very wealthy. Both Joseph and Mary were descendents from the Royal House of David. If his family was wealthy where did we get the idea that he was poor and who has continued to promote that idea and why?

Rich Relations

Jesus appears to have known some wealthy people. The wedding at Canaan does not appear to be a poor family's wedding and there is evidence Jesus knew many rich as well as influential people.

Mary's uncle was Joseph of Arimathea, who was the "nobilis decurio" of the Roman Empire, among other titles, as stated by Jerome and earlier sources. As nobilis decurio, Joseph of Arimathea was charged with overseeing the mining operations of the Roman Empire.

Furthermore, the Greek word used for the occupation of Joseph, the father of Jesus, more likely should be translated as an architect or at the very least a skilled craftsman like an engineer rather than a carpenter or worker with wood.

So we are to believe that Mary's uncle could never push any work Joseph's way? Not very Jewish?

His birth was in Bethlehem where there was no room at the inn. Poor people would not even go to the Inn. So they were in a place where there was live stock that was underground. Only rich people would have a cave or barn for their animals and they would have lived right in with their animals. Large homes would often keep animals on the first floor but not the poor.

The poor would be lucky to have something as nice as a lean-to like people see under Christmas trees.

The word for manger did not mean it was for feeding animals but was something built like a chest, box or cradle.

Made Himself Poor

It has become popular to believe Jesus was poor. It certainly makes the poor feel better. Some how being poor is suppose to make you humble. Would it destroy some vast eternal plan if he were a wealthy man? Or would it give us a deeper insight into exactly where he was trying to take us.

What if we take this following statement literally?...

• 2 Corinthians 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

That is a pretty direct statement that he was rich but decided to give up his wealthy estate. People are ready to discount this as a metaphor that means he was rich in heaven but came down here to be poor.

Then there is:

• Luke 1:53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Does this mean he lived rich—or like a rich man—but gave up his wealth as it appears to be said in 2 Corinthians?

How many ministers want to hear that they need to give up their wealth?

Jesus was clearly telling that to his disciples who are seeking to be ministers.

• Luke 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

The word "hath" there means possessions, goods, wealth, property. Jesus was adamant about this giving up of property as an inheritance for his ministers.

This was repeated over and over for those who wanted to be of greater service and we see men like Joses who became Barnabas doing likewise and Ananias failing to do so.

This was the same thing that Moses required of the Levites but modern ministers do not want to hear it. Why?

Is it because they are living the good life tickling the ears of the people who think they are following Christ but are also under a strong delusion.

Christs warns the wealthy that it is not easy getting into the kingdom and wealthy ministers seem to imagine they are immune to this directive of Christ.

Even when Jesus said Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head (Matthew 8:20) does not contradict the idea that he was rich but gave that up.

I also wonder if his reference to foxes is not related to to Luke 13:32:

• And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third [day] I shall be perfected.

That fox, Herod Antipas, had his den, his throne but the son of man came as a servant and gave all to serve all and would soon be hailed as the highest son of David and the rightful heir of his throne.

But again Jesus would choose to stay in the Garden of Gethsemane than in some 10 million dollar mansion.

It is no sin to be wealthy but it may be an opportunity to sin.

Wealth is power and to much wealth corrupts. It is some times best to give as much of it away as possible or at least as practical.

• “I know not why any one but a schoolboy in his declamation should whine over the Commonwealth of Rome, which grew great only by the misery of the rest of mankind. The Romans, like others, as soon as they grew rich, grew corrupt; and in their corruption sold the lives and freedoms of themselves, and of one another.”

― Samuel Johnson

Doing the Christ thing

Who is with Christ and wishes to follow his instructions?

Who has the faith of Christ?

• John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;

So who is doing what Jesus said to do?
And who is telling you that it is not important to do what he said as long as you believe he is God?

Who supported Jesus' ministry?

Everybody had to help support and when they organized into congregations of ten—as we see throughout Christianity for centuries—what was given was called tithe because it came from ten elders.

We know prominent people also supported his ministry which was caring for the needy through a network of ministers.

• Luke 8:3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

So why would we not think Jesus was not rich as a member of his family?

Do we follow Christ because like Peter the Father revealed it to us to follow Him through the holy spirit?

This of course needs to become our answer.

Often our own motivation is clouded because while we may seek the truth we may not have found it entirely. We may need to see some of our selfish motivations.

One reason I pursued this topic is to challenge us to think beyond what we were taught, to see how our own image of the truth can be affected by what we accept early in our personal learning process.

Had we been taught from childhood that Jesus came from a rich family who gave up his wealth to serve the people as a minister and taught a way of sacrifice and love we would readily accept that He required all his disciples who sought to be his appointed ministers to give up their personal estates and become the public servants of a network of believers who lived by charity instead of force. We would all be familiar with 2 Corinthians 8:9:

• "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich."

And it would be easy to accept the idea he was rich and gave up his wealth for a life of service.

The only real problem would be the fact that Mary supposedly sacrificed turtledoves and pigeons in Luke 2:24 These are supposed to be the offerings for people who cannot afford a lamb or cannot bring one.

But since we know there was a large religious group at the time which had many ideas and teaching that paralleled what Jesus taught and they did not participate in the animal sacrifice of the Pharisees though they read the same Torah then we should ask ourselves did the original text mean that Mary brought turtledoves and pigeons to be slaughtered?

Have we been deceived and misguided by ministers who crept in and taught us damnable heresies?

And when someone comes and tells us the truth we immediately imagine him to be a lunatic and a fool?

To realize that faith in God and His ways means to care for one another by charity and not coveting your neighbors goods for your personal benefit or gain. And then their are the ministers who have become rich preaching a do nothing Gospel of false belief that has brought the whole world back into the bondage of Egypt where it is worse than it was then.

• Mark 12:33 "And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."

Turtledoves and Estates

Is a turtledove a bird or a turtle or is it part of your personal estate?

• Luke 2:24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Some believe that the offering of birds reveals that they must have been poor.

Many believe that John the Baptist was an Essene and Jesus was to come after him as his successor.

For centuries, both ancient writers and modern scholars read reports about the Essenes from writers such as Josephus, Philo, Pliny, Porphyry, and Jerome — the “classical sources” on the Essenes.

Philo suggests that they were a pacifist group while others carried swords and even trained but were counted as being willing to take a personal blow without retaliation. He also describes the group in a way that suggests Pythagoreanism because pf their rejection of taking oaths, and the keeping of slaves.

Philo claims that the Essenes abstained from animal sacrifices altogether.

Josephus agrees with Philo on most of these points. Josephus reports that, because of their unique views, they were excluded from the temple courts and their system of Corban [sacrifice]. For this reason they had their own system of sacrifice based on charity as we see John and Jesus preaching and preaching against the Pharisee's system of Corban that made the word of God to non effect.

We see the teachings of we call the Essenes in the gospel yet the modern Church barely addresses them and modern preachers though they sometimes start poor they often make themselves rich. Why shouldn't they? Almost everything else they do is contrary to what Christ said.

So if they rejected animal sacrifice because they believed that the pharisees had mistranslated the Torah and distorted the message of Moses, something Jesus also projected about them, then maybe Mary and Joseph did not follow their interpretation of Leviticus 12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:

Young Pigeons

The first mention of "young Pigeons" in the Bible is Genesis 15:9

• "And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon."

The words "young pigeon" is translated from 01469 לזוג gowzal לזג from gozal meaning "to tear away, seize, plunder, tear off, pull off..." It only appears twice in the bible. Here and in Deuteronomy 32:11 and is translated young pigeon or just young and is said to mean a nestling, young (of birds).

In Leviticus we see two words translated young pigeons.

• "And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD [be] of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons." Leviticus 1:14

What we see as young is the Hebrew word ben There are other words used to describe a young animal like na‘ar. and baqar

Another word translated young is bachuwr

What we see as pigeon in is yownah From yayin meaning wine.

We see these words all mentioned in Leviticus 12:6

• "And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:"

The word lamb is kebes.

The Hebrew letters for a lamb are ShemBeitKuf.

The same letters ShemBeitKuf are used to produce other words like kabash meaning to subdue, and kebesh translated footstool in 2 Chronicles 9:18

• "And [there were] six steps to the throne, with a footstool of gold, [which were] fastened to the throne, and stays on each side of the sitting place, and two lions standing by the stays:"

All the other places you see the word footstool in the Old Testament it is translated from different words that mean stamp or put under your feet.

What does this all mean?

It means that just as words are symbols of ideas so are the word descriptions of events like sacrificing sheep or lambs. They are ways of expressing an intent to follow a precept described in a pictorial metaphor.

Once we realize that the purpose of religion is to fulfill our duty to God and our fellow man and that the altars of stone back in the days of Abraham and Moses were also to be living stones then we can begin to understand that God never wanted men to slay and burn up sheep, turtles, turtledoves or young pigeons but wanted us to give freely to care for one anther in faith, hope and charity according to the perfect law of liberty.

This is the simplicity of the [://www.hisholychurch.org/media/books/TKC/TKCa1-1IsRighteousness.php Gospel of the kingdom of God] and the righteousness we are to seek.

Sacrifice

Were they doing something quite different?

Were they sacrificing a turtle dove at all or is that a quirk of mistranslating the original Hebrew?

Were Mary and Joseph members of an Essene religious order? Not likely. But John certainly could have been.

What do those ministers of an Essene order who took on the duties of the Levites do?

They serve the people and the people. People as elders of their Essene congregations, like Mary and Joseph, could have been very well off and simply made a sacrifice "according to their estate." The other meaning for the word turtledove (TavVavReish) in the old testament when given the Strong's number 08448 is translated "according to the estate" in 1 Chronicles 17:17 "And [yet] this was a small thing in thine eyes, O God; for thou hast [also] spoken of thy servant’s house for a great while to come, and hast regarded me according to the estate of a man of high degree, O LORD God."

Altars of Blood

Take the word often translated dove, or in the Hebrew, "hnwy yownah," which is numbered 03123 in Strong's Concordance, and probably is from "Nyy yayin" meaning wine.

The word turtledove is "Reish Vav Tav" (towr),  numbered 08449. It is said to probably be from "Reish Vav Tav towr" or "rt tor" but numbered 08447 defined "circlet, plait, turn...  succession, order” and is translated "turn, row, border." The word numbered 08447 is said to be from a primitive root numbered 08446 "Reish Vav Tav tuwr" defined "to seek, search out, spy out, explore."

The Hebrew word that is translated "turtledove" nine times is simply translated as "turtle" five times. The same three-letter word in 1 Chronicles 17:17, when given the Strong's number 08448, is translated "according to the estate." 

We have to be in an almost hypnotic state to imagine that God wanted people to kill turtledoves and burn them up every time we sinned. Once we accept an idea, it is often difficult to change our thinking. The more bizarre, fantastic, or absurd an idea, the tighter its hold on our minds.

This is why the world is in subjection, often defending that bondage with their very lives. One of the great tools of creating this state of confusion is the use of doctrines built around mysteries that are irrational, or are beyond natural comprehension or common sense.

If God never wanted us to kill animals in bloody mutilations, then Christ did not initiate the end of that animal blood sacrifice with His own innocent blood. Can Jewish and Christian scholars be so wrong? The prevarication about animal sacrifice is more pervasive today than it was at the time of Christ. That delusion blocks our understanding of Christ's message to us.

Doves

Writings of the time show a attitude toward dove killing as false interpretation of the Torah and not at all what God really intended.

THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY TWELVE

A.K.A. The Gospel of the Perfect Life

Translated from the original Aramaic and edited by the Rev. Gideon Jasper Richard Ouseley

Lection XLI
Iesus Setteth Free The Caged Birds

1. AND as Jesus was going to Jericho there met him a man with a cage full of birds which he had caught and some young doves. And he saw how they were in misery having lost their liberty, and moreover being tormented with hunger and thirst.

2. And he said unto the man, What doest thou with these? And the man answered, I go to make my living by selling these birds which I have taken.

3. And Jesus said, What thinkest thou, if another, stronger than thou or with greater craft, were to catch thee and bind thee, or thy wife, or thy children, and cast thee into a prison, in order to sell thee into captivity for his own profit, and to make a living?

4. Are not these thy fellow creatures, only weaker than thou? And doth not the same God our Father-Mother care for them as for thee? Let these thy little brethren and sisters go forth into freedom and see that thou do this thing no more, but provide honestly for thy living.

5. And the man marvelled at these words and at his authority, and he let the birds go free. So when the birds came forth they flew unto Jesus and stood on his shoulder and sang unto him.

6. And the man inquired further of his doctrine, and he went his way, and learnt the craft of making baskets, and by this craft he earned his bread, and afterwards he brake his cages and his traps, and became a disciple of Jesus.

Joseph the widower

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds that Joseph was a widower and was merely betrothed to Mary, but never married her. They name Joseph's first wife as Salome. There was a Salome but they are identified several ways and could be more than one. Although there is some Biblical support to this position.

They go on to believe that the references to Jesus' "brothers" are to children of Joseph and Salome. This is also derived from the writings of Jerome.