Christmass Without Cross

[Fox-on-Cross]

Jesus began poor in a stable and ended poor on a cross.

He studied in Jewish religious books.

Son of a carpenter he had never a hammer and nails in his hands.

When preaching he were maintained by gifts; public did not see him as a betrayer. Though his lessons were strict abstract, enveloped in fairy tales.

Jewish religious leaders were envy about his success. They tried him to kill with success, insurrection against the IR. Always a capital sin, even in our days.

Jesus saw the hammer and felt the nails.
You too, he thought, life is suffering.

Four centuries later the church was established. All functionaries had a royal life possessing secretly girls (or boys), even in our days. Martin Luther shit against a luxury pope but also he enjoyed the mighty things in life: good food (roasted fish and rich birds), a non-celibate life and honour.

Only for the lowest people rest life-time a cross, symbol for suffering.
Who wants however on the cross with full stomach after a night in a warm double bed?

 

[Eulalia]

I don't get why we're always told Jesus was born and lived in poverty.
Joseph ran a carpentry business in a rural town in a region
that apparently was doing pretty well under Roman rule,
with the market opportunities the presence of the army opened up.
He wouldn't have been filthy rich,
but there's no reason to think he was grindingly poor.
Ditto Jesus' disciples - fisherman, owning (jointly, as brothers) their own boats,
trading in an a good market. Not rich, but certainly not poor -
and in a position to give up their jobs and leave their responsibilities to others.
Jesus's stories are about people who owned vineyards, employed labourers,
possessed pieces of gold to lose, threw big wedding and homecoming parties -
yes, he acknowledged 'the poor are always with' us, and we have responsibilities towards them,
but he, and the people he addressed, seem to me to have been not the really poor,
but the rural and small-town 'middle classes'.
I'm just stirring the pudding!

As for me, I don't want luxury, don't see the point of being ascetic,
but enjoy the good things of life that I can afford.
And, yes, I'd feel much more ready to hang on a cross if I'd had a good meal
than if I were starving hungry.

 

[Hagbard]

I have heard a theory that speculates that originally Jesus might have been speaking literally with regard to his royal heritage and not figuratively. Keep in mind that in the gospels of Luke and Matthew genealogies are presented that trace Jesus back to Solomon and David. So the theory goes that he was literally plotting the ascendancy of a new Israel and overthrowing the Romans. Alas, it didn't go off. I could go on forever about this kind of stuff (stoopid Catholic school) but I won't. In the end, all of the interpretations are as right as all the rest barring the invention of a time machine.

 

[Naraku]

Jesus may not have been a carpenter in the modern sense of a skilled craftsman. The Greek word translated as carpenter is tekton, which could mean anything from a craftsman to a laborer; basically, anyone who works with his hands.
http://gospelgeeks.net/10-misconceptions-about-jesus-4-jesus-was-a-carpenter/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Portraits_of_the_historical_Jesus
Jesus & his family were "poor" by the standards of the Roman or Jewish aristocracy, but, they were probably no better or worse off the anyone else in Nazareth...or most other parts of the Empire. Most people lived hand to mouth with only a precious few possessions. This situation remained pretty much unchanged until the Industrial Revolution created the Middle Class & a consumer society.

I think the "Jesus was a carpenter" idea started among later Christians who were drawn to the symmetry of a man who made his living working with wood wound up nailed to it. The cross & the crucifixion had little importance to early Christians, who were more interested in the Resurrection & the teachings of Jesus.

But, if he was a carpenter...

 

[thehangingtree]

The book of Mark, generally agreed to be the oldest of the four new testaments, many of the claims of the Son of God do not appear. I don't think the bible is all fiction yet it was written by men much by word of mouth.

What we consider poor today would be rich in those times.

In the US, there is a 'poverty lever' that does not include income from welfare, Medicare, food stamps, and probably a few more programs I forget but fund with my taxes. I would think many in the poorest nations today would think they are quite comfortable in my country...

Tree

 

[Darkprincess69]

I have to admit that I am a hedonistic pleasureseeker and as such I do enjoy luxury. Not that I can afford a particularly lavish lifestyle, but that's not entirely the point. Taking pleasure in the things that mean the most to you is important, and enjoying pleasure is an important lifeskill that sadly, society seems to somewhat shun these days.

There are two ways to be rich. One is to have everything you desire. The other is to be happy with the things you have.

Pleasure for pleasure's own sake.

Pleasure is the Path to Joy.

and so on...

There's nothing wrong with enjoying Christmas (or any other time of year for that matter). Just because you want to have a good time doesn't mean that you lose sight of the true meaning of Christmas...

Even hardcore aetheists like me don't have to be seduced by the obscene commercial rat-race of one-upmanship that it has become.

Sorry I seem to be rambling... :/

 

[Jollyrei]

I enjoy the odd bits of luxury I get, but I don't pursue luxury in the sense of "things". My family and I have enough stuff lying around. I don't need more stuff. I like the things I buy to be of a certain quality, but my idea of a good Christmas is having good company, decent wine, good food, and music. Luxury, in that sense, becomes more of an experience not entirely related to having things.

As Eul and others have pointed out, Jesus was probably not living in total destitution. His family may not have been poverty stricken, but was probably not rich. There are scant few good historical records to even solidify Jesus in history (the Bible was not written as a historical record, but as a book of religious and moral stories, and all characters, including Jesus, are stylized a bit), suggesting Jesus' family was not particularly "important". That sort of story, I think, speaks to living life with as much authenticity as possible. In that sense, I would rather care for those around me, have good experiences in life and contribute to helping other people have a good life (insofar as that is possible) in whatever little way I can. I'm not the world's best "consumer".

There's nothing wrong certainly with enjoying Christmas or life or fantasy or sex, or any of that. If there is a deity that created life in the universe, presumeably that deity wanted its little creations to enjoy life. Christmas, Yule, Solstice and all those winter holidays are about rejoicing. Expressing that and celebrating, in whatever way works for you, is not wrong, and does not detract from the idea that the God or gods we invoke in this season, also remind us that as we give gifts and receive love and enjoyment, we can, in some small or larger way, care for "the poor". In some way, it's a better story if Jesus wasn't tremendously rich - caring does not depend on wealth.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Fox-on-Cross]

Rich is no option except for a betrayer as Baghwan.
Though Martin Luther was not poor.
Rests pour or middle class.

But with poor you get the best understanding in solidarity by the poor and they are in majority.

 

[Eulalia]

Con los pobres de la tierra
Quiero yo mi suerte echar:
El arroyo de la sierra
Me complace más que el mar.

I want to share my fate
With the poor people of the earth:
The little streams of the mountains
please me more than the sea.

José Martí