was jesus poor?

In 2Cor8.9, Paul states this very thing within the context of a discussion on monetary (physical) wealth- "for your sakes he [Jesus] became poor". While we understand quite well from other passages (e.g., Phil2.6ff) that Jesus did in fact give up quite a bit from a spiritual perspective, Paul is speaking directly to the Corinthians about their monetary giving habits, and there is little reason to think that Paul is at the very least reflecting on Jesus' spiritual and material situation on earth.

In the Gospels, there are indicators that Jesus was not a wealthy person and chose material frugality as an adult. Mary and Joseph offer the most menial gift at Jesus' circumcision, showing that they themselves were not well off. Jesus worked as a common laborer for most of his life on earth, apparently supporting his mother and younger siblings. He states matter-of-factly that he owns no home (Matt8.20), and several narratives show his primary dependence on others (his followers, wo/men of peace, Luke10.5ff). He is "always" talking about money. Many of his parables relate to money; he is comparing and contrasting the kingdom of God to "Money". This is true even in the first Gospel, where some of the language is "spiritualized" (aka. poor in spirit) and some teaching is omitted (see note on Luke6 below). When the twelve give a typical, modern-day response to the woman's lavish gift in Jhn12 ('this gift could have fed the poor'), Jesus states that you (we, his followers) will always have the poor "among" (meta) you (us). After looking in a Greek dictionary, it seems that this word 'meta' denotes close association and implies accompaniment. At the very least, I don't think Jesus is implying that the situation of poverty will always be an overwhelming problem that will persist regardless of how much money we throw at it (a typical reformed answer; and trust me, I've given it plenty of times). Lastly, Jesus was buried in the tomb of a rich man showing that, even in death, he did not have a place to rest his body.

Turning to the prophetic writings, the OT clearly shows that Messiah was to associate with the outcast and destitute, and Jesus reminds people that he is fulfilling this mission (Luke4.18, Matt11.4). The coronation psalm (72) obviously foreshadows Messiah and goes into detail about the activity of the King among the broken (afflicted, weak, needy). As the 'gods' of Psa82 (that's us, see Jhn10.34), we are also commanded to defend the rights of the weak, fatherless, poor, and oppressed. All these themes are heightened and made explicit in the Songs of the Servant (Isa 42, 49, 50, 53, 61). These are quoted by Jesus (or others) as signs of his rightful title and fulfillment of the role, Messiah. Particularly pertinent to this discussion, the Servant's appearance and impact on the public sphere is given in Isa53- "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." Certainly, the description fits a person on the periphery of society, closer to material poverty than middle class. We also need to remember that the division between poor and rich was much more stark in first century Jewish culture, than in the 21c. Western world.

In closing, there's a philosophical and cultural argument that Jesus would not have experienced the suffering in his death were he not poor and destitute. Not unlike our own day, folks that are higher up the socio-economic ladder have several means to get around humiliating situations and capital punishments. To summarize, there are lots of reasons to believe that Jesus incarnated himself fully to the poor, both in spirit and appearance, being like them in more ways than the upper-middle class situation that we currently find ourselves.

Jesus and Horus, Zeitgeist Response, Part One

Well I must say, the Zeitgeist film is powerful- powerful images, powerful music, powerful words. Thanks so much for sending it my way; I've learned so much in just the few hours that I was researching. I've chosen to give you bits of stuff rather than just stick "everything" into one email. Although I got sleepy toward the end (sadly, right when the world was being taken over), I did watch parts 1 (most relevant to our discussion) and 2 most attentively. Part 2 is a conspiracy theory as you've stated (scary though, i must admit?!); sad to think that the next Oliver Stone will make a movie of it (a la JFK) in 20 years or so.

In trying to organize my thoughts about Part 1, I would begin by saying a couple of general statements, and then some specifics about the Horus/Jesus connection (NOTE: Probably not worth reading all at one sitting; sorry it's SO long):

(1) The entire tone of the presentation in Part 1 is surprisingly very matter-of-fact, both the claims against the historicity of Jesus (i.e., astrology) as well as the factual statements about Horus (and all the other messianic figures). It is interesting to me that in a Post-modern context (skeptical, by nature); here is a person purporting lots of factual (truth) claims without any references. As you must know, there are always two sides to every historical goose chase (wild or not), and it is just striking to me that he (the Voice) just comes across and says for example, "There it is. Mary is Virgo, the Maiden; Jesus is the Sun; Sirius is the Star in the East; and Orion's belt is the Three Wisemen." All I'm trying to say is that when religious folks make factual claims like this (without support), they're immediately discounted as fundamentalist quacks.

(2) The story of Jesus was tragically under-represented (but you knew I was going to say that, right?). For starters, there are several things about the story of Jesus that put some "historical pressure" on the reality of at least a man named Jesus from Nazereth claiming to be someone (Not "purely fictional" as the film states). (post email if you want to read more ...)

(3) Lastly, the story of Horus. I've pulled from several websites with references which I list below. It seems that there is NOT one individual character and story named Horus. The Horus story contains at least two different god stories, and possibly several more (e.g., it seems that there are similarities between Osiris and Horus stories). Therefore, it becomes more likely that there may be overlapping facts that coincide with the story of Jesus. (post email if you want to read more ...)

Here are the websites, some of them more interesting than others:
http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
(although written from a pro-Jesus perspective, he seems to give the best , non-religious references to support his claims; btw, there are more links at the bottom of this page)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
(i guess this is the most "objective" viewpoint, i.e., non-religious)

http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm
(interesting that the two different viewpoints are laid out, with the one being very similar to Zeitgeist, while the other is a pro-Jesus viewpoint).