And in Luke it says "Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry." So being fortunate in this life will put you off on a bad foot in the next?

Having a bad life is good, having a good life is bad. It's an inversion of common sense to make victimhood a virtue. Of course it plays well to commoners who see themselves as victims in societies with great inequality. It's not surprising to me that Christianity became so popular.

And in James it says: "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you."

I think in both cases (the verse in Luke you mention which I believe is in Mary's Magnificat and this one in James) the idea is that if you were well fed now at the expense of the poor then woe to you - ie. if you exploited the poor so that you could be rich. You can see this theme in the prophets of the Hebrew bible as well. Also, there are wealthy people mentioned in the new testament (contributors to Paul's missions) who are commended for being generous. Wealth in itself isn't condemned, it's hoarding of wealth that's condemned.

Luke also says "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets."

So it's bad to be well liked because some of the people who were well liked in the past had wrong beliefs or weren't good people? No sorry, I'd rather be popular. Why can't somebody be popular and good at the same time? Having lots of supportive social connections is good, saying otherwise is serving up cope for people who don't. Of course this plays well for the crowd because most people aren't as well liked as they would wish; Luke says their plight is actually a virtue so they can feel good about not being popular and pity those who are.

Note the part about the false prophets, though (that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets). They would make prophecies about how everything was going to be great so they could be tight with the king at the time. When in fact everything was about to go to shit. So they lied so they could have a good political position.

Being well liked at the expense of truth is often how the world works, but what's being said here is that it doesn't play well in the upside-down kingdom of God where the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

> Being well liked at the expense of truth is kind of how the world works

So there's no way to be well liked unless you tell lies? I don't believe that. I think that's cope for people who aren't well liked to feel morally superior to those who are. It's a form of sour grapes; I didn't want the grapes anyway because they're sour. I didn't want to be popular anyway, because those people are liars.

As an aside from the textual citations, it does seem that there is a theme in the bible which inverts suffering and salvation. This shows up multiple times, with Mortification of the flesh, anchorites, ect.

After all, Jesus dying on the cross is perhaps the most virtuous and aspirational acts.

As it relates to this conversation, it is interesting that the nobility suffering for the sake of others has been simplified to or conflated with simply the nobility of suffering.

It's also interesting to note that in large swaths of modern American Evangelical Christianity suffering is not only to be avoided at all costs, but there's a promise of prosperity (Prosperity Gospel/Charismatic circles - actually a pretty large portion of US Christianity). These teachings seem to be directly at odds with many of these verses.

> Prosperity Gospel [...] These teachings seem to be directly at odds with many of these verses.

Are they? They both follow the form of 'impoverish yourself now to receive rewards later.' Sure, one promises reward in the afterlife and one promises reward in this life, but for those who truly believe the afterlife is just as real as this life, I don't think there's much meaningful difference. To such people, both promised rewards are real and desirable.