Was Jesus a Communist?

[Geniasis]

So.. now that we established that Jesus at his birth was reasonably wealthy, both due to the excellent craftsmanship of Josef and the precious gifts handed to him by the wise men..

And now that we established he owned nothing when he started preaching...

What did he do with the money ? It seems relevant to the topic.

If he wasn't hypocritical? He gave it away, or sold it and funded the poor. Probably.

Or he might have tithed it to the Temple. He was somewhat religious, as I recall.

Personally, I think he used it to buy Mary and Joseph a nice place in Boca del Rio.

[Darenjo]

yes. He gave everything away for free and insisted the rich give all they had if they wanted to follow him.

No he insisted that ANYBODY who wanted to follow him had to give away anything.

Btw, no i don't think he was communist, since i don't think that he would've like an economy controlled by the Roman emperor. I do think he was liberal, since he did advocate for the poor and handicapped of society (handicapped meaning ppl physically handicapped, and those who just couldn't make it on their own in Roman society)

[Geniasis]

But there is nothing wrong with having a gun.

"Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

[Tungookska]

But there is nothing wrong with having a gun.

"Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

i think that was just a metaphor for masturbation

[Natapoc]

yes. He gave everything away for free and insisted the rich give all they had if they wanted to follow him.

No he insisted that ANYBODY who wanted to follow him had to give away anything.

Your statement i've made bold in no way contradicts my statement.

[Geniasis]

i think that was just a metaphor for masturbation

But he said it when Peter cut the guard's ear off with his sw--OH MY GOD EW EW EW EW EW!

[New Amerik]

But there is nothing wrong with having a gun.

"Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

Clearly Jesus was anti-sword, not anti-gun.

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't think hating rich people implied communism. Nor do I think Jesus hated anyone.

Indeed. His words were not about money. It's the persons actions......

His words were not about money?

"if you want to be perfect, go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor" isn't about money?

It's not just "give some money to the poor" either!

Of course, if everyone did that there would be a contradiction because the last of the poor would have stuff and no-one to sell it to. I'm not quite sure what happens then, maybe people start smashing shit up so no-one has to own it.

At some point, there's going to be a balance - everyone has what they need, and people aren't being distracted by excess worldliness. The 'perfect' model of Christianity is minimalist communism.

You can probably guess, I'm not a Christian so I don't take the Bible too seriously. But in fairness, this one story of a rich man isn't the whole of the Christian prescription. And there's a fairly serious contradiction even within this short passage (all 3 versions): the return "a hundred times" in this life, of what the Disciples have given up to follow Jesus.

And let's call it ascetic socialism. Is it really "communism" without the idea of critical property being held in common? All having equally as much private property isn't quite the same thing.

What is given back is not supposed to be considered in terms of material value. It's only a contradiction if you think the point of the story is to talk about worldly wealth, rather than spiritual richness.

[Free Soviets]

And let's call it ascetic socialism. Is it really "communism" without the idea of critical property being held in common? All having equally as much private property isn't quite the same thing.

i find it endlessly amusing that even the phrasing of property being held in common and given to each according to their need is straight outta comptonking james

[Geniasis]

And let's call it ascetic socialism. Is it really "communism" without the idea of critical property being held in common? All having equally as much private property isn't quite the same thing.

i find it endlessly amusing that even the phrasing of property being held in common and given to each according to their need is straight outta comptonking james

I'm honestly surprised McCarthy didn't go after Jesus on this one.

[Caninope]

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

The Bible clearly says, with God, all things are possible. The real problem is not wealth, but that men let wealth get between them and God.

Funny how the rich Americans always say that. But then America is a country that was founded by heretics. Socialism in the UK took a large amount of support from the likes of the Methodist church, which supported socialism on theological grounds.

America was founded not founded by heretics. Rather, Americans were fleeing heretical oppression.

And they proceeded to persecute everyone who didn't agree with their personal beliefs, your point?

I fail to see how the nation that pioneered freedom of religion is a nation rife with persecution. Sure, some people like the Puritans in Massachusetts originally restricted other religions, but the Pennsylvanians were pacifist Quakers that wanted to harm nobody. By the time a real American identity was established, freedom of religion was an idea gaining ground and was adopted in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

I phrased that wrong, our founders persecuted anyone who didn't look like them.
Black slaves, Native Americans to name a few. Sure, the slaves were eventually freed, but the Native Americans were all but exterminated. But, I'm getting off-topic...

Caninope Corollary to Godwin's Law: As an internet discussion continues on, the probability of a reference to slavery and disenfranchisement of blacks in the US will eventually reach 1.

[Solyhniya]

Yes. More Communist than Marx. More Communist than pretty much anyone else. That's why the Man has always had to hijack Communistic, Right-Hand Path religions such as Islam, but much more so Christianity, chiefly Catholicism. There was no way the Romans could have stopped Christianity, so instead they rebranded it and turned it into a weapon to use against and control the people.

Christianity and Socialism are inextricably linked. No Christian can truly hate Socialism or excuse themselves making huge amounts of money whilst giving little to those less fortunate than they are.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

No, you silly nincompoop.

He was Muslim.

[Der Teutoniker]

Nope, he wasn't at all.

Advocating free-will charity is quite a bit different than"no-state" state enforced wealth redistribution.

And the notion that rich people are potentially less likely to enter the kingdom of God is not communist. It merely demonstrates the truth behind the corrupting allure of wealth, and the amassing of wealth.

One can be rich, and still a Christian (that is to say, a follower of Jesus).

[Pretty Awesome Persons]

I don't think Jesus hated anyone, but I do think he supported a government similar to socialism. He supports a system where the humble and poor are equal to the rich and mighty and material possessions don't matter. I think it's was the Book of Acts where one of Jesus's apostles went to a village and asked everyone to bring all their money, so they could divide it equally between the villagers. Conclusion: Jesus was a socialist, or at least supported a system similar to socialism.
On the other hand, he advocated charity to the poor, so it gets complicated.

[Der Teutoniker]

Christianity and Socialism are inextricably linked. No Christian can truly hate Socialism or excuse themselves making huge amounts of money whilst giving little to those less fortunate than they are.

I believe that's called "charity" not "socialism".

Perhaps a quick Google search would highlight some differences.

[Central Slavia]

Yes. More Communist than Marx. More Communist than pretty much anyone else. That's why the Man has always had to hijack Communistic, Right-Hand Path religions such as Islam, but much more so Christianity, chiefly Catholicism. There was no way the Romans could have stopped Christianity, so instead they rebranded it and turned it into a weapon to use against and control the people.

Christianity and Socialism are inextricably linked. No Christian can truly hate Socialism or excuse themselves making huge amounts of money whilst giving little to those less fortunate than they are.

I agree with you... not to mention all kinds of movements like Pacem in Terris in my country which were priests that realised they can coexist with the socialist states... of course this was against the tastes of vatican and their like....
It is ridiculous how the church led by a sheep herder and fishermen has the incredible riches there are ..... and don't get me started on celibate....

[Der Teutoniker]

I don't think Jesus hated anyone, but I do think he supported a government similar to socialism. He supports a system where the humble and poor are equal to the rich and mighty and material possessions don't matter. I think it's was the Book of Acts where one of Jesus's apostles went to a village and asked everyone to bring all their money, so they could divide it equally between the villagers. Conclusion: Jesus was a socialist, or at least supported a system similar to socialism.

Incorrect. Jesus advocated His followers sharing their resources where necessary, taking care of themselves, and being equal.

I don't think Jesus advocated any kind of government, after all, He supported the payment of taxes to Rome, and Rome was not socialist.

[The Tofu Islands]

Advocating free-will charity is quite a bit different than"no-state" state enforced wealth redistribution.

Nothing about communism requires that it is forced upon people. Societies based on voluntary participation can still be communist.

[New Amerik]

And let's call it ascetic socialism. Is it really "communism" without the idea of critical property being held in common? All having equally as much private property isn't quite the same thing.

i find it endlessly amusing that even the phrasing of property being held in common and given to each according to their need is straight outta comptonking james

I'm honestly surprised McCarthy didn't go after Jesus on this one.

McCarthy: In my hand, I hold a book detailing the biggest Commie and Red ever, and perhaps one of the greatest threats to American Democracy ever!

Journalist: Umm, excuse me Senator McCarthy, that's a copy of the New Testament.

McCarthy: Yes! The greatest Red ever, I tell you, it's Jesus! This filthy long-haired pinko advocates giving away of wealth, redistribution of wealth, equality of money, and his teachings have infiltrated our schools, court, and government! The Communists are invading our glorious nation! The President had to swear on this book! It's a pinko conspiracy!

Journalist: But wasn't Jesus...well, wasn't he a good guy? I mean, he died for our sins!

McCarthy: When he died, he shed BLOOD! You know what color blood is, young man? RED!
We must burn these filthy Commie books, and be strong in defiance! America was not built on such values! Long live Democratic Secularism! YAWEH BLESS AMERICA!

[Grave_n_idle]

Nope, he wasn't at all.

Advocating free-will charity is quite a bit different than"no-state" state enforced wealth redistribution.

And the notion that rich people are potentially less likely to enter the kingdom of God is not communist. It merely demonstrates the truth behind the corrupting allure of wealth, and the amassing of wealth.

One can be rich, and still a Christian (that is to say, a follower of Jesus).

No, one can be rich and call oneself a Christian. Not the same thing.

[Hydesland]

Jesus didn't really have anything to say about how the government should organise society, he only spoke of what the individual should do.

[Hydesland]

yes. He gave everything away for free and insisted the rich give all they had if they wanted to follow him.

That doesn't make you a communist, that makes you an altruist.

[Der Teutoniker]

No, one can be rich and call oneself a Christian. Not the same thing.

Is there a definition in the Bible somewhere that I missed?

[Sveltz]

Of course he wasn't. He was the King of Kings.