NationStates

Geniasis wrote:My Bible places Matthew somewhere around 85 CE.

Which only goes to show that we're not really sure. Anyway, "in the 40s" is certainly wrong, though some collection of stories about Jesus was probably circulating by then.

Perspicacious Lawyers wrote:The rich were different back then than they are now. Now they are hardworking, which is the only way to riches. Back in that day they got everything from family and were oppressive, most rich were--oh fuck it I dont know...

Actually, there's a non-insignificant amount of luck involved in becoming rich in the modern world. Other than that, there's inheriting it from family.

Geniasis wrote:

Perspicacious Lawyers wrote:The rich were different back then than they are now. Now they are hardworking, which is the only way to riches. Back in that day they got everything from family and were oppressive, most rich were--oh fuck it I dont know...

Actually, there's a non-insignificant amount of luck involved in becoming rich in the modern world. Other than that, there's inheriting it from family.

Just so. You can work hard and get rich or you can inherit it from family. True now, true 2,000 years ago. Perspicacious Lawyers' statement is simply wrong.

Farnhamia wrote:

Geniasis wrote:

Perspicacious Lawyers wrote:The rich were different back then than they are now. Now they are hardworking, which is the only way to riches. Back in that day they got everything from family and were oppressive, most rich were--oh fuck it I dont know...

Actually, there's a non-insignificant amount of luck involved in becoming rich in the modern world. Other than that, there's inheriting it from family.

Just so. You can work hard and get rich or you can inherit it from family. True now, true 2,000 years ago. Perspicacious Lawyers' statement is simply wrong.

And, far more commonly, you can work hard and not get rich.

In other words, you're right - there's just no objective link between hard work and wealth.

Geniasis wrote:

Perspicacious Lawyers wrote:The rich were different back then than they are now. Now they are hardworking, which is the only way to riches. Back in that day they got everything from family and were oppressive, most rich were--oh fuck it I dont know...

Actually, there's a non-insignificant amount of luck involved in becoming rich in the modern world. Other than that, there's inheriting it from family.

Thats a pretty low %. Are you really damaging the reputation of people who get rich by hard work because of a few "lottery winners" or inheritances?

Wilgrove wrote:

Perspicacious Lawyers wrote:The rich were different back then than they are now. Now they are hardworking, which is the only way to riches. Back in that day they got everything from family and were oppressive, most rich were--oh fuck it I dont know...

Probably the most honest statement in this thread.

Yes, I found it rather charming too. At least there's one thing PL knows, which is more than I'm sure of

When you said that this very plain statement by Jesus which appears in three Gospels was him "implying" something, did you mean that Jesus wasn't a very good public speaker? Inclined to shoot his mouth off without thinking things through? Or perhaps he was just stupid?

Or perhaps you just want to read it that way because you don't want to give away everything you've got to the poor.

Perspicacious Lawyers wrote:

Geniasis wrote:

Perspicacious Lawyers wrote:The rich were different back then than they are now. Now they are hardworking, which is the only way to riches. Back in that day they got everything from family and were oppressive, most rich were--oh fuck it I dont know...

Actually, there's a non-insignificant amount of luck involved in becoming rich in the modern world. Other than that, there's inheriting it from family.

Thats a pretty low %. Are you really damaging the reputation of people who get rich by hard work because of a few "lottery winners" or inheritances?

You made some rather sweeping statements. When you do that, you stand to get whacked with the broom. Working hard is not the only way to get rich, and all rich people in ancient times did not inherit their wealth.

Perspicacious Lawyers wrote:Thats a pretty low %. Are you really damaging the reputation of people who get rich by hard work because of a few "lottery winners" or inheritances?

It's not, but we're not thinking of luck the same way. In order to succeed financially, it is important to work hard, but that's not even close to the entire formula. Success also requires luck, that is, either having a sizable network of connections or being fortunate to be in the right place at the right time to stumble onto a window of opportunity.

The sad fact, is that not everyone ends up getting that. That's why a lot of people who work their assess off never get rich.

The difference in wealth between modern "tribes" (nationalities) is the most glaring objection to "the rich mostly earned it". You can stay alive (and by global terms, be quite comfortable) without doing a lick of work, without taking welfare or charity, just by scavenging what people throw away in an affluent country. You can starve to death working twelve hours a day in the least affluent countries, and with a lottery-winners chance of moving to the other situation. I consider that an outright refutation.

Geniasis wrote:It's not, but we're not thinking of luck the same way. In order to succeed financially, it is important to work hard, but that's not even close to the entire formula. Success also requires luck, that is, either having a sizable network of connections or being fortunate to be in the right place at the right time to stumble onto a window of opportunity.

There's more luck to it than that. Being born in a developed country helps a lot. As does being the right race and sex.

The Tofu Islands wrote:

Geniasis wrote:It's not, but we're not thinking of luck the same way. In order to succeed financially, it is important to work hard, but that's not even close to the entire formula. Success also requires luck, that is, either having a sizable network of connections or being fortunate to be in the right place at the right time to stumble onto a window of opportunity.

There's more luck to it than that. Being born in a developed country helps a lot. As does being the right race and sex.

Aye. That I was starting from the assumption of being born in a developed country tells you something.

Dododecapod wrote:No. The Jesus of the Bible was an ascetic - one who seeks to live simply, without the distractions of goods and ownership, that he may perfect himself spiritually. When asked how to be a good folower of him, he says to do likewise, to give away your worldly goods and follow the ascetic path.
A good communist wants everyone to have equal access to everything. Jesus wanted to have nothing.

Win. Next topic?

Jesus was obviously a fascist. *nods*

Panzerjaeger wrote:Jesus was obviously a fascist. *nods*

In what way?

I mean, obviously, this was some kind of nonsensical flippant comment, but let's pretend it was supposed to make sense.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Panzerjaeger wrote:Jesus was obviously a fascist. *nods*

In what way?

I mean, obviously, this was some kind of nonsensical flippant comment, but let's pretend it was supposed to make sense.

When he performed his own Kristallnacht. Those poor money lenders and that poor temple.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Panzerjaeger wrote:Jesus was obviously a fascist. *nods*

In what way?

I mean, obviously, this was some kind of nonsensical flippant comment, but let's pretend it was supposed to make sense.

He attacked the money lenders in the temple so... he hates... er... economic freedom?

Sanctus Angelus wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:No. The Jesus of the Bible was an ascetic - one who seeks to live simply, without the distractions of goods and ownership, that he may perfect himself spiritually. When asked how to be a good folower of him, he says to do likewise, to give away your worldly goods and follow the ascetic path.
A good communist wants everyone to have equal access to everything. Jesus wanted to have nothing.

Win. Next topic?

It's not perfect. "Equal access to everything" isn't really ownership. By not having the 'competetitive" satisfaction of extensive private ownership, communism is an ascetic ideal too.

They are different ideals, but by no means diametrically opposed. A good communist could also be an ascetic.

If I'm not mistaken (I probably am but regardless) that passage is often interpreted as a warning to concern about material things, lecturing as a spiritual adviser. If I recall in the passage regarding the camel going through the needle, did Jesus say anything like, "You -must- give up your money, furniture, ect. to the poor?". It's my understanding that overall, throughout the New Testament, the warning was how the concern of material things over spiritual things can lead you astray, not that having things was awful if someone else didn't.

If the above is true, the passage would be more of a test wouldn't you think? Can you let go of the things you typically care about for something you believe in?

And no, I don't believe it was Communist. Communism is a complex thing, but I believe that Jesus promoted a "live as you believe" sort of lifestyle. Sure he said a lot of what you ought to do and should do, and that if you were aiming for something spiritually then you should do this or not, but no one -had- to do anything.

If I'm not mistaken that is <.<;

Geniasis wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Panzerjaeger wrote:Jesus was obviously a fascist. *nods*

In what way?

I mean, obviously, this was some kind of nonsensical flippant comment, but let's pretend it was supposed to make sense.

He attacked the money lenders in the temple so... he hates... er... economic freedom?

Lending out money for interest. He hates banks.

Zeyad wrote:If I'm not mistaken (I probably am but regardless) that passage is often interpreted as a warning to concern about material things, lecturing as a spiritual adviser. If I recall in the passage regarding the camel going through the needle, did Jesus say anything like, "You -must- give up your money, furniture, ect. to the poor?". It's my understanding that overall, throughout the New Testament, the warning was how the concern of material things over spiritual things can lead you astray, not that having things was awful if someone else didn't.

If the above is true, the passage would be more of a test wouldn't you think? Can you let go of the things you typically care about for something you believe in?

And no, I don't believe it was Communist. Communism is a complex thing, but I believe that Jesus promoted a "live as you believe" sort of lifestyle. Sure he said a lot of what you ought to do and should do, and that if you were aiming for something spiritually then you should do this or not, but no one -had- to do anything.

If I'm not mistaken that is <.<;

My thoughts as well. The trying to put a political spin on it is just silly and has been done by the Far Right, Far Left and everyone in between. It is just nonsensical to claim someone who was not around for those political systems somehow supported them even though Jesus was quite apolitical.

Class Warhair wrote:

Geniasis wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Panzerjaeger wrote:Jesus was obviously a fascist. *nods*

In what way?

I mean, obviously, this was some kind of nonsensical flippant comment, but let's pretend it was supposed to make sense.

He attacked the money lenders in the temple so... he hates... er... economic freedom?

Lending out money for interest. He hates banks.

And who planned to ban usury? Nazis! Win.

Class Warhair wrote:

Sanctus Angelus wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:No. The Jesus of the Bible was an ascetic - one who seeks to live simply, without the distractions of goods and ownership, that he may perfect himself spiritually. When asked how to be a good folower of him, he says to do likewise, to give away your worldly goods and follow the ascetic path.
A good communist wants everyone to have equal access to everything. Jesus wanted to have nothing.

Win. Next topic?

It's not perfect. "Equal access to everything" isn't really ownership. By not having the 'competetitive" satisfaction of extensive private ownership, communism is an ascetic ideal too.

They are different ideals, but by no means diametrically opposed. A good communist could also be an ascetic.

Quite so. However, while Jesus decried wealth, he also showed no class consciousness - and considering that his father's supposed trade (carpenter) was a skilled and valued position of some status, was, in the society of the time, from well-off beginnings. Many of the disciples were men of standing before joing his group. In short, while a Communist could be an Ascetic, this Ascetic was not a Communist.

No, he was not. His teachings had to do with a personal way of life, not an economic ideology. Simply donating money and possessions to the poor does not make one a communist. On the flip side, read Matthew 25:14-30 and try to explain how Jesus isn't a capitalist. I think that Jesus did not follow any specific ideology.

Farnhamia wrote:

Geniasis wrote:

Bamabam wrote:

Dododecapod wrote:

Bamabam wrote:

Bafuria wrote:Assuming he existed?

Yes.

He obviously exsisted.Anyone with half a brain could figure that one out

Actually, there is considerable question, though this isn't the place for that discussion.

I am guessing your going to say the bible was written a couple hundred years later like most liberals like to tell me.But there is evidence outside the bible that some of the books could have been written around 40 A.D.Yes the bible its self wasnt put together since a long ways.But the scriptures are very factual,and timely in there writing by the actual people who claimed to write them.

Mark and Luke, the two earliest gospels, were written no earlier than 70 AD--about 30 years after the death after the death of Christ.

Matthew is the earliest, I believe, but there is so much material shared among Matthew, Mark and Luke that some scholars have postulated a separate collection of stories about Jesus that predates them all. The earliest date for Matthew is the 50s, but most favor a slightly later date, in the 60s.

Actually, the Gospel of Mark is the earliest. The Gospel of Matthew most likely used Mark and one or more other texts as it's sources.

Conservative Alliances wrote:No, he was not. His teachings had to do with a personal way of life, not an economic ideology. Simply donating money and possessions to the poor does not make one a communist. On the flip side, read Matthew 25:14-30 and try to explain how Jesus isn't a capitalist.

Easy Capitalism was not an Economic Theory then. Okay next stupid question.