Was Jesus a rich or poor man, when on earth?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,298
26,336
113
#61
It's obviously very valuable because everyone is trying to get it.
We can all have cake and coffee, maybe donuts for those who prefer, or cookies...
while we ponder how it is that Jesus was rich, and what it is we inherit from Him...


1697993830883.png

:)
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,178
113
#62
funny arguments
well when Jesus was cruficied his family could not afford to bury him so a rich man offered - Joseph of Arimathea

According to the customs of the time and compared to everyone else Jesus was not especially wealthy monetarily. He always referred to himself as Son of Man, and let very few people in the revelation he was actually the Son of God.

However everything he had came from Father above who had everything so, it was never earthly riches that Jesus had. Jesus had to work for a living as its clear that his earthly dad Joseph had passed away by the time he entered ministry and he had to support his mother Mary, who it seems was widowed and didnt remarry. Being the eldest firstborn son that was his responsibility.

Marys home town was not an especially rich town, it was Nazareth. Josephs was Bethlehem, though Jesus heavenly Fathers house was in the city of Jerusalem, and obviously the temple was VERY rich. However Jesus claim to it was obstructed by the Pharisees, who believed they owned and ran it. But they were mere tenants, Jesus was the SON.
 

blueluna5

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2018
559
330
63
#63
funny arguments
well when Jesus was cruficied his family could not afford to bury him so a rich man offered - Joseph of Arimathea

According to the customs of the time and compared to everyone else Jesus was not especially wealthy monetarily. He always referred to himself as Son of Man, and let very few people in the revelation he was actually the Son of God.

However everything he had came from Father above who had everything so, it was never earthly riches that Jesus had. Jesus had to work for a living as its clear that his earthly dad Joseph had passed away by the time he entered ministry and he had to support his mother Mary, who it seems was widowed and didnt remarry. Being the eldest firstborn son that was his responsibility.

Marys home town was not an especially rich town, it was Nazareth. Josephs was Bethlehem, though Jesus heavenly Fathers house was in the city of Jerusalem, and obviously the temple was VERY rich. However Jesus claim to it was obstructed by the Pharisees, who believed they owned and ran it. But they were mere tenants, Jesus was the SON.

That's a good point. But then again Jesus said let the dead bury the dead and knew he was going to rise in 3 days so maybe that's why he didn't pay for it or his family didn't? 🤔

That doesn't say he was poor and considering how against death he was it's not surprising he took no part in the arrangements nor his family.

My assumption is that the Joseph of Arimathea the rich man took care of it bc he loved Jesus and had nothing to do with if his family had the means or not.
 

blueluna5

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2018
559
330
63
#64
Luke 2:21-24

"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) 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."

This is what it says "in the law of the Lord":

Leviticus 12:1-8

"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. 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: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female. And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean."

Most Bible versions read "and if she cannot afford a lamb" in verse 8:

https://biblehub.com/leviticus/12-8.htm

Seeing how Mary did not bring a lamb, but brought two turtledoves or two pigeons instead, this seems to indicate that she was not wealthy at that time.
There is a spiritual meaning to that... bc God already provided the lamb, Jesus.

And even if they were very poor, that was before the caravan of treasure was brought to him anyways. So it really doesn't give us as much info as they're saying online.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,691
13,135
113
#65
1. Mary was a descendent of king David and therefore had generational wealth.
goodness.

she was 40 generations from David.

If your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather was wealthy, does it follow that you are??
 

blueluna5

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2018
559
330
63
#66
Jesus and his disciples walked most places rather than ride animals or even wagons. There is a paticular passage where the disciples and Jesus are walking along and picking grain along the way. The edges of fields were left for the poor. Was Jesus allowing his disciples to steal what was left for the poor? Or where they following what was right and customary according to the law?
Jesus abandoned his working class life style to fulfill his ministry and found himself as he said "having no place to lay his head" at night. And they found themselves pulling grain from the edges of fields as they went.
This is not the life of a rich person, this is the life of a person relying on God to supply every need. Be it hospitality or self sufficiency or picking grain from fields as they went.
If one notice when need arose to feed the thousands. It wasnt going into towns to buy supplies, they said they would have enough to do that. Rather it was a miraculous working of Christ to feed the multitudes.

I think it is a serious error to assume Jesus was operating on earthly riches and relying on mamon rather than faith.
They actually said they had enough money to buy food for thousands if you remember. And Jesus didn't want them to go so God supplied it. It had nothing to do with money and everything to do with hearing the word of God. That alone shows they had money. I don't have money to feed thousands. 😕

When Jesus started his ministry he was giving his riches away and living off the land like you said. That's different....he still had money but gave to charity. Not all of it, but a lot of it.

He even told his people..

Then He called His twelve disciples together and gave them power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. He sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. And He said to them, “Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.” Luke 9:1-3

And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack…” Luke 22:35

He says over and over how there is money and when to take and when not to take.

He also said this speaking of Judas.
John 12:6 He didn’t say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief. He was in charge of the money-bag and would steal part of what was put in it.

So Jesus had a money bag and judas was stealing from it. Shocking right? But think about this.... if they only had a few coins they would have noticed right away and he would have been caught. But if it was a lot of money no one (besides Jesus obviously) would know he was even doing it. And considering no one knew judas would betray Jesus that was the case. Showing again there was a lot of money.
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
5,228
983
113
Oregon
cfbac.org
#67
.
Luke 2:4-5 . . So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee
to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house
and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to
be married to him

Bethlehem was Mary's ancestral home the same as Joseph's seeing as how it
was she alone who provided Jesus a biological association with David.

Although commonly known among schooled Jews, it's generally not all that
well known among Gentiles that before any man can be considered for
David's throne, he first and foremost has to be one of the king's
descendants. This rule is irrevocable, i.e. it cannot be circumvented.

Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn
from it: "Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the
patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us
unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn
with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.

Rom 1:3 . . . descended from David according to the flesh

FAQ: Whence did baby Jesus obtain a Y chromosome for his gender?

REPLY : In the beginning, Eve's entire body-- inside and out, front to back, top to
bottom, and side to side --was constructed with material taken from Adam's
body. (Gen 2:21-22) So if God could construct an entire woman from
material taken from a man's body, then it shouldn't be too difficult for Him
to construct a teensy little chromosome from a woman's body.

The beauty of it is that a Y chromosome constructed with material taken
from Mary's body wouldn't be a foreign substance; but would be David's
substance; same as herself.

FAQ: You say Jesus was David's biological descendant. How is that possible if he
had God's blood in his flesh?

REPLY: According to Lev 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Well then, in
order for Jesus to be David's bona fides biological posterity, he had to have
human blood in his flesh due to the fact that his biological ancestor David
was human.

One of the oldest creeds in the book states that Jesus is fully God and fully
Man. Well that creed would be grossly mistaken if something other than
David's life was in Jesus' blood. Plus: on numerous occasions Jesus referred
to himself as "son of Man" which, likewise, would be patently false were
David's life not in his blood.
_
 

blueluna5

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2018
559
330
63
#69
goodness.

she was 40 generations from David.

If your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather was rich does it follow that you are??
If a 3 wise men came to me with a caravan of camels carrying treasure I'd be rich...

If the son of God decided to create furniture they would be in very great demand and he'd be rich.

Just saying... it seems like common sense, but the brainwashing goes deep.

Here's something to consider:
Judas Iscariot was able to buy a field near Jerusalem with the 30 pieces of silver he received for betraying Christ. Gold and silver has had a 57 - 1 ratio ever since. We don't know how much gold they gave, but we can assume with a caravan of camels bringing and also as not to look cheap for the Son of God they would have brought a lot of gold and way more than even 30 pieces. That alone shows how rich Jesus would have been.
 

Karlon

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2023
1,955
820
113
#70
1. Mary was a descendent of king David and therefore had generational wealth.

Generational wealth is squandered probably as often as it is maintained/built upon.

2. Staying in a manger was because there was no room, NOT no money.

Doesn't mean they had money.

3. Wise men brought his the best riches in those days.

Gold would have been worth something, yes.

4. King Herod felt threatened because rumors of another rich king (aka Jesus) was born
and he ordered to kill all babies under 2 for it. Makes way more sense if Jesus was rich.

Not really. A threat to someone's throne only needs a legitimate claim.

5. Mary was told at the wedding there was no more wine. Why go to her and Jesus? They didn't know he
could turn water into wine as he had never done that. They would go to rich people who could afford to help.

We are not told that they went to Mary. We are told that Mary went to Jesus.

10. Thousands of people would not follow someone poor. Knowing people, I just
don't see this happening. How could he help them if he couldn't help himself?

The crux of Jesus' message was about the kingdom of God, which He said was not an earthly
kingdom. People followed Him because of His knowledge and wisdom. He knew of things
they longed to learn about. He performed miracles. They believed He was their Messiah.
very well put together & taught
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,298
26,336
113
#71
They actually said they had enough money to buy food for thousands if you remember.
Mark 6:35-37 By now the hour was already late. So the disciples came to Jesus and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is already late. 36 Dismiss the crowd so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” 37 But Jesus told them, “You give them something to eat.” They asked Him, “Should we go out and spend two hundred denarii to give all of them bread to eat?” John 6:7 Philip answered, "Two hundred denarii would not buy enough bread for each of them to have a small piece."
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,298
26,336
113
#72
If a 3 wise men came to me with a caravan of camels carrying treasure I'd be rich...

If the son of God decided to create furniture they would be in very great demand and he'd be rich.

Just saying... it seems like common sense, but the brainwashing goes deep.
The belief that Jesus is God, the Son of God, or a person of the Trinity, is incompatible with Jewish theology, so I am not
sure who you think believed this besides the disciples, whom Jesus sternly warned not to tell anyone that He was the Christ.


How much gold did the wise men give? Do we know? You make many assumptions.

For all we know it was only enough to support His family for a few years.

But in your thinking, it lasted well past Jesus being thirty...
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,691
13,135
113
#73
If a 3 wise men came to me with a caravan of camels carrying treasure I'd be rich...

If the son of God decided to create furniture they would be in very great demand and he'd be rich.

Just saying... it seems like common sense, but the brainwashing goes deep.

Here's something to consider:
Judas Iscariot was able to buy a field near Jerusalem with the 30 pieces of silver he received for betraying Christ. Gold and silver has had a 57 - 1 ratio ever since. We don't know how much gold they gave, but we can assume with a caravan of camels bringing and also as not to look cheap for the Son of God they would have brought a lot of gold and way more than even 30 pieces. That alone shows how rich Jesus would have been.
as an aside i want to mention that nothing in the Bible says there were 3 wise men.

we get that at least partly from medieval art that pictured one man with each gift.

:)
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,298
26,336
113
#74
as an aside i want to mention that nothing in the Bible says there were 3 wise men.

we get that at least partly from medieval art that pictured one man with each gift.

:)
Good catch! .:D
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,691
13,135
113
#75
If a 3 wise men came to me with a caravan of camels carrying treasure I'd be rich...

If the son of God decided to create furniture they would be in very great demand and he'd be rich.

Just saying... it seems like common sense, but the brainwashing goes deep.

Here's something to consider:
Judas Iscariot was able to buy a field near Jerusalem with the 30 pieces of silver he received for betraying Christ. Gold and silver has had a 57 - 1 ratio ever since. We don't know how much gold they gave, but we can assume with a caravan of camels bringing and also as not to look cheap for the Son of God they would have brought a lot of gold and way more than even 30 pieces. That alone shows how rich Jesus would have been.
The sages from the east most likely did give the infant Jesus and His parents quite a sizable amount of wealth, i agree. they were giving gifts fit for a king, and they knew He was the greatest king on earth, so they would not have spared expense, and they had to have been influential men of means themselves - the 2-year number Herod came up with tells us about how long it took them to get to Jerusalem after seeing the signs in the sky, including planning and waiting for the right season for travel. this kind of journey, at least a year and traveling one way, wasn't something just any regular person could afford to do.

But i also agree with what others have mentioned, that this lump sum would have been used to fund their flight to Egypt, where Joseph did not have a job waiting for him.
It does not indicate that they were already wealthy by any means, and it being a one time gift, not a yearly tribute, it says nothing about the state of Joseph and Mary's finances for the next 30 years.

The notable absence of Joseph in the gospel narratives seems to indicate that he had passed away before Jesus began His ministry - which would leave Mary essentially incomeless, if that was the case, in a society where women generally ran the home and men earned a livingt hrough work.

there's every reason to believe that Mary was shrewd and wise, which would substantiate speculation that she, through investment of what was left of the gifts at His birth, and through the support of her other children, wasn't poor or destitute - but there is really nothing about the gifts of the magi that necessarily means that Jesus was a millionaire all His life.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,691
13,135
113
#77
10. Thousands of people would not follow someone poor. Knowing people, I just don't see this happening. How could he help them if he couldn't help himself?
i'm having a really hard time taking this seriously...

:rolleyes:
 

ThyKingdomComeSoon

Well-known member
Apr 1, 2023
974
594
93
#78
I watched a pastor on YouTube explain how Jesus was actually very rich when on earth. He made a lot of valid points and basically I feel like I've been lied to again.

The reasons are as follow:

1. Mary was a descendent of king David and therefore had generational wealth.
2. Staying in a manger was because there was no room, NOT no money.
3. Wise men brought his the best riches in those days.
4. King Herod felt threatened because rumors of another rich king (aka Jesus) was born and he ordered to kill all babies under 2 for it. Makes way more sense if Jesus was rich.
5. Mary was told at the wedding there was no more wine. Why go to her and Jesus? They didn't know he could turn water into wine as he had never done that. They would go to rich people who could afford to help.
6. Jesus had 12 disciples with families follow him. Would they just let their families starve?
7. Joseph was a carpenter and it was a highly respected occupation back then. Plus he was "the" carpenter indicating he was very good at what he did.
8. Jesus had a treasurer. Poor people don't need treasurers.
9. The Roman soldiers cut the cloth of Jesus's clothes and divided it among themselves indicating value. They couldn't cut the outer coat bc it was seamless and made of 1 piece. It was designed for kings to wear.
10. Thousands of people would not follow someone poor. Knowing people, I just don't see this happening. How could he help them if he couldn't help himself?

What do you think? Is Jesus rich or poor?

Even deeper... if he was/is rich, why the big cover up? Why do they not want the children of God to know he was rich on earth?
That pastor obviously LIED. Jesus was poor, they were certainly not rich, Jesus had a trade, carpentry. There is no indication they had any money but certainly the Holy Father took care of their needs, I am also certain they took care of the less fortunate nearby. Remember what Jesus said about rich people...

Blessings.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,178
113
#79
That's a good point. But then again Jesus said let the dead bury the dead and knew he was going to rise in 3 days so maybe that's why he didn't pay for it or his family didn't? 🤔

That doesn't say he was poor and considering how against death he was it's not surprising he took no part in the arrangements nor his family.

My assumption is that the Joseph of Arimathea the rich man took care of it bc he loved Jesus and had nothing to do with if his family had the means or not.
you make a lot of assumptions blueluna trying to make Jesus into mr Billionaire moneybags but truth was he wasnt as wealthy as you want him to be.

So his family didnt love him enough to provide Jesus with a decent burial are you saying because Jesus had told everyone he was going to rise in 3 days ...from what, the garbage dump? Thats where the dead bodies of condemned criminals went that couldnt afford to be buried.
 

Webers.Home

Well-known member
May 28, 2018
5,228
983
113
Oregon
cfbac.org
#80
.
4. King Herod felt threatened because rumors of another rich king (aka
Jesus) was born and he ordered to kill all babies under 2 for it. Makes way
more sense if Jesus was rich.
I seriously doubt Herod was motivated by money. The Bible says he was
furious due to the wise men's failure to comply with his instructions. That
kind of disrespect typically has a bad effect on deranged folks like himself
accustomed to having their own way.

Historically, the Herods ruled by fear and cruelty rather than by care. In
other words, murdering all the children thereabouts was actually a politically
smart thing to do; even today. For example Kim Jong Un's practice of not
only jailing offenders, but jailing their family too. He's also known for
blasting opponents to pieces with an anti-aircraft gun and shredding their
bodies with bullets from a full magazine of AK47 ammunition. Thus citizens
in North Korea afford that man a lot of respect and are very reluctant to
oppose him.

Anyway, while we're on it:

Matt 2:16b . . He sent forth, and slew all the children that were in
Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under,
according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

The Greek word for "coasts" is a mite ambiguous. It technically indicates
borders, but can also indicate regions and/or environs and surrounding
areas.

That verse is commonly appropriated to calculate Jesus' age relative to when
the wise men visited him and his mother. But the verse merely indicates the
passage of time since Herod interviewed the men; which is quite useless for
calculating Jesus' age seeing as how he was already born before the men
even left their country-- how long before they left their country, nobody
knows for sure.

Matt 2:17-18 . .Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was
fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel
weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no
more." (cf. Jer 31:15)

Ramah was roughly six miles north of Jerusalem, while Bethlehem is roughly
the same distance south in the opposite direction.

Ramah was settled by the people of Rachel's biological son Benjamin, so that
any weeping done by the mothers in that area would be reckoned, by
heritage, to be Rachel's weeping.

Anyway; what this suggests to me is that the slaughter of the innocents
extended beyond the community of Bethlehem. Were we to set a
draftsman's compass to a radius equal to the distance between Bethlehem
and Jerusalem, and scribe a circle with Jerusalem at the center, it would
yield a pretty good idea of the area covered by Herod's death squads--
roughly 113 square miles.

But Herod's efforts were futile. Jesus wasn't even in the country; Joseph had
moved the child and his mother down into Egypt before all the killing began
(Matt 2:13) and in time, Herod died and his danger to Jesus' survival died
with him. (Matt 2:19-23)
_