Do you think Jesus should of been taken away from Mary and Joseph because they were very poor?

Question

I think people are misunderstanding my question. Jesus was not adopted, since he was part God and man there is no way he could of had an earthly father. My point however, is that He was part of a poor family, and those who say he was not poor are seriously inncorrect. Many, many young single women have major pressure put on them that they should not keep their babies because they may be poor atm, but who is to say it will stay that way always? As Mary was poor, I think the problem is too much emphasis is put on money and not on the sacred bond of mother and child. Jesus taught the evils of money, and showed us that money is not important to be a good and loving person. Mary was a wonderful mother and an example that money does not make a child feel loved. Hugs and kisses are free! Love can NEVER be bought. It does not matter if one's mother is poor, in Gods eyes BLOODLINE, is what matters. Being poor does NOT mean being an unfit parent.

Answer 1

Hi,

I'm glad you asked this question because I have noticed several times on the adoption boards the mention of "Jesus was adopted."  He was not adopted.  I guess what they are trying to imply is if they think it's in the bible & it happened to Jesus, then it's good enough for all adoptees, so we should stop complaining?

No, that is not a fair comparison of what adoptees go through today.  They are totally different experiences.

Was Jesus taken away from his mother at birth or shortly thereafter and permanently transferred to another home away from any of his relatives?  No, he was not.  

Did Jesus grow up and know his natural mother?  Yes, he did.  Who has not seen the madonna images depicting mother & child?  They were definately closely connected.

Was Jesus lied to and meant to assume that Joseph was his biological father?  No, I don't think so.  

Was he kept from knowing his date, time, and place of birth?  Again, no.

Were the people who raised him infertile?  Nope.  

Were there any forged documents forced upon him by the government?  None.

Did Joseph pay disgraceful amounts of money for the privilege of being in Jesus's life & acting like a father?  No.

Did any entity profit huge amounts of money from Jesus's so-called adoption?  None that we know of.  Agencies are a relatively new phenomenon.

Was his real identity kept from him?  No way.

Their family would not have been considered to be any poorer than the average family living at that time and place in history.  Regardless, being poor in and of itself is never any justification for tearing apart families.  

There is nothing in the bible that even comes close to adoption as it's practiced today.  Although children have always been taken in (out of necessity) to be raised by others throughout history, it wasn't until nearly 20 centuries later that it became commonly done for the benefit of the adopters instead & that adoption laws turned to work against the adoptee.  

Whatever Jesus did experience from having Joseph in his life as a human father-figure did not amount to what adoptees today experience from being adopted.  It's an unfair and untrue comparison.  Children should be cared for, yes, but not ever made to assume a false identity or treated as commodities.  I think the bible clearly supports that, as there is no mention of adoption or similar situation in the bible.  

Thank you for asking.

julie

reunited adoptee

rights activist

Answer 2

No, poor or not if you provide for your child then no.  Besides, it's a little late for that.  Also, sometimes when you don't have alot of money children learn humbleness and humility.  I am not poor, but we do have to budget our money.  We were raised with money and I find that circumstances have helped me grow up and be the best parent I can.  As long as you are a good parent poor or rich, and give the provision and love needed there would be no grounds for being taken away.  Of course, with me, if I were living on the streets poor, then I would give my children to a better home where they wouldn't have to live on the streets themselves.  But, there would not have been any taking away because I love my baby girl so much.  Of course, as a parent, I would make darn sure my child doesn't go to a neglectful, abusive home.  I would screen every single person that came in to try and adopt.  Any criminal history would be thrown out and I would watch them closely and do whatever needed to make sure they would be loved and taken care of.  I'm glad I'm not in that situation though and that I have a home and enough money to not worry about what we are going to do the next week to pay our house. For me though this will always be my childrens home.  When I adopt, then that child is my child as well.  I wish they would do better screening on those adopting.

Answer 3

Actually, the bible DOESN'T talk about adoption. Nowhere in the bible that I have EVER read, and I have read, just about all of it, a few times over, does it ever mention the "legal" termination of ones parental rights and the "legal" adoption of a child into the home of parents who weren't biologically related to the child.

Do some people in the bible end up caring for a child that isn't their "own." yes. But THAT isn't adoption, that is how adoption SHOULD be, but its not.

What the bible DOES talk about however is the stigma around b*****d children.

That a b*****d, male or female, and all of that b*****d's progeny for ten generations could never marry a Jew or become a part of the Jewish community. (Deuteronomy 23:2).

And how Jesus was born to Mary out of wedlock. Making him, therefore, a b*****d. Just like most of my adopted brothers and sisters, including myself.

Which is a very interesting topic in itself, and I realize its not the topic of this thread, so I will stop talking about it soon.

Records for adoptees were originally sealed because of the stigma around bastardy in society. They were originally sealed from the public only, not the adoptee, not the first parents and not the adoptive parents. ONLY SOCIETY. If bastardy is so shamed upon, especially by our culture, our society, the society in the 40's and 50's that were living in this country, heavily influenced by Christianity, the same society who outcasted, and ridiculed those born out of wedlock to the extent that the govt. sealed our records for our own protection, then MAYBE, just MAYBE we need to be reading the bible a little more closely.

And I will ALSO leave you with this quote:

The WICKED snatch fatherless children from their mother's b*****s, and take a poor man's baby as a pledge before they will loan him any money or grain." Job 24:9

Answer 4

As an "adoptee" my view is that some idiot who wanted to shock the world "Dan Brown" style should have buggered off to another forum that wasnt attempting to deal with a subject that can be close to some people's heart. I have no problems with being adopted (or indeed Dan Brown), but some people may have problems with it. If you have issues, perhaps you ought to face them, rather than laughing at them....?

Answer 5

No one's baby should be taken away just because the family is poor. A child is better off in a family with very little money but with parents who know how to parent and can provide love than with a rich family that doesn't.

You obviously have some issues. Why not get counseling and learn to deal effectively with your problems rather than by spewing hate on here?

Answer 6

NO..besides its a little late now..plus back then they didnt have such inane laws..now-a-days every bodys nosey and wants to critisize other for what they dont have or dont want....i've seen some poor families that are fantastic parents...leave them alone..

Answer 7

Okay, number one: really?  What is this question going to solve?  I hope this is a question that has been burning deep inside of you for days for you to have posted this here.  Secondly: Did you just start posting questions to have people feel bad for you?

Answer 8

I don't think that Mariam and Joseph were poor and Prophet Isa(PBUH*) wouldn't have been taken from his mother anyway. ALLAH(SWT) wouldn't have allowed it.

Answer 9

They weren't.

Answer 10

Augh, no. Yeah they had dirt floors, but it was 2000 years ago. Besides that they were great parents and that's what matters...I'm guessing you're getting at why do poor moms have their babies taken away for being poor..... but that's not true.

Not all b-moms are poor. My sons b-mom wasn't .  Maybe some VERY poor women (you know in 3rd world countries) just want their babies to see their first b-day.

Answer 11

No almost everybody has the right to be a parent.  Growing up poor sometimes is a good thing.

Answer 12

I don't economic class should affect a parents right to their child.

Answer 13

Children are not removed from their parents' custody just because they are poor.  

It is how those parents choose to parent that gets their children taken away.  There are also many rich people that lose custody of their children.  But, I think the reason we those with a low socioeconomic status having issues with caring for their children properly is because they do not use the resources provided to them wisely, they may not have a good support network of friends and family and/or they cannot care for their children as they should because they may not be able to cope with their life and what it takes to raise a child.

Now, please keep in mind that I do not feel that all of those considered to be "poor" have those issues.  I'm only stating that as an educated guess.  I'm not expert on the issue.

But, what I do know is that the courts must have evidence that children are being abused/mistreated before terminating a parents' rights.  The fact that they may be making minimum wage has nothing to do with it.

Answer 14

Jesus was adopted by Joseph. It also mentions adoption in the Bible. I guess this blows your theory out of the water. Why don't you move on to your next post because it doesn't seem like you've got your misery fix yet.

Ever heard the song "Misery" by Soul Asylum. You should add it to your myspace.