Jesus was a Socialist or Communist

[Dust Bunnies]

Jesus was a Socialist or Communist. You all are probably saying WTF at this point. Jesus believed in helping the poor and that the rich shall be cast down, which is a core idea of Socialism and Communism. discuss

[Unicorn]

What kind of socialist supports slavery?

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/jesusandslavery.html

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

No jesus was a ****.


Who the fuck suports slavery ( unicorn beat me too it) abuseing women and then starts a movement that is responsiblie for causeing misary and pain world wide on the false pretense of being sent by "god".


We should kill the idea of christ and this time he wont be coming back.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If such a God exists, he endowed us with the ability to use punctuation and capitalization. I would urge some people to utilize this gift.


Jesus was a Socialist or Communist.I doubt it, but some of the ideas expressed in the New Testament do make him out to be a stern critic of Friedman and Von Mises types.


Jesus believed in helping the poor and that the rich shall be cast down, which is a core idea of Socialism and Communism. discussYou're simplifying both socialism and the New Testament. I would agree that certain expressions accounted for by Jesus (supposedly) do align with socialism, but that's not the same thing as saying Jesus was a socialist.

[Unicorn]

If such a God exists, he endowed us with the ability to use punctuation and capitalization. I would urge some people to utilize this gift.

I doubt it, but some of the ideas expressed in the New Testament do make him out to be a stern critic of Friedman and Von Mises types.

You're simplifying both socialism and the New Testament. I would agree that certain expressions accounted for by Jesus (supposedly) do align with socialism, but that's not the same thing as saying Jesus was a socialist.
Jesus supported a slave society. I suppose that there is a contradiction between the the views of Jesus and those of the free-market capitalists Friedman and von Mises who are actually progressive compared to Jesus. Capitalism is a more advantaged mode of production than a slave society.

[Dust Bunnies]

On the Slavery issue, while I am happy to see that Unicorn got a bible verse, that is not a quotation from Jesus. Its what Paul said, so we can't say its exactly as Jesus said/stood for as Paul is human and it could of had a metaphoric meaning.

If you are going to disagree and put it bible verse it has to be from one of these four books
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

If its not one of those there is no chance Jesus is saying it. Those 4 books (Gospels) has the sayings of Jesus.

[Unicorn]

On the Slavery issue, while I am happy to see that Unicorn got a bible verse, that is not a quotation from Jesus. Its what Paul said, so we can't say its exactly as Jesus said/stood for as Paul is human and it could of had a metaphoric meaning.

If you are going to disagree and put it bible verse it has to be from one of these four books
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

If its not one of those there is no chance Jesus is saying it. Those 4 books (Gospels) has the sayings of Jesus.
Passages from the Christian Scriptures which Sanction Slavery

Neither Jesus nor St. Paul, nor any other Biblical figure is recorded as saying anything in opposition to the institution of slavery. Slavery was very much a part of life in Palestine and in the rest of the Roman Empire during New Testament times. Quoting Rabbi M.J. Raphall, circa 1861, "Receiving slavery as one of the conditions of society, the New Testament nowhere interferes with or contradicts the slave code of Moses; it even preserves a letter [to Philemon] written by one of the most eminent Christian teachers [St. Paul] to a slave owner on sending back to him his runaway slave." 1

People in debt (and their children) were still being sold into slavery in New Testament times: Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."


Priests still owned slaves: Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"


Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.

This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having taken it:

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

[Dystisis]

I wouldn't take anything available about Jesus as true, there has just been so much manipulation of historical events I would advise to forget about the whole thing. As an example, the idea that Jesus was crucified is far from a given. Muslims doesn't believe this.

Anyways, my general impression of Jesus was that he was in some way progressive in his time... Given that he (supposedly) was critical of occupational forces of what is now Israel. He personally probably had a belief far from what is taught today in Church, probably a much more pagan and esoteric-Judaism influenced belief system.

[Dust Bunnies]

On the supporting or against it that does not mean he supported slavery. If he isn't saying he supports it then there is no argument. Also, don't quote a Rabbi, I can foresee a hidden purpose (call me paranoid).

Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.": I just looked it up in my Bible (The Catholic Living Bible), you took it out of context, I believe it was a parable.

Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:": Peter did not have slaves and the high priest is a Jewish priest, not even close.

For the last two points you brought up, its a parable, its a story with language the people understood. The people back then thought different, he had to teach them somehow, what you said was not an endorsement for slavery, if its a parable (story) it doesn't matter since I will say again, he is speaking with metaphors the people understood. I doubt people from those times would understand our metaphors today.

[al8]

It is highly anachronistic to concider a typical revivalist jewish country preacher that lived 2000 years ago either a socialist or communist. What on earth could that religious windbag possibly contribute to us now? Vague populists gestures towards "solidarity" with the poor is common place among decivers and conmen, and dosn't count for shit. And in no way does it equate to socialism or communism.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Jesus supported a slave society. I suppose that there is a contradiction between the the views of Jesus and those of the free-market capitalists Friedman and von Mises who are actually progressive compared to Jesus. Capitalism is a more advantaged mode of production than a slave society.

I'm not seeing where you interpreted my post to mean anything different. Jesus Christ, if such a figure did exist, was a man of his own age. However, there is still something contradictory in the way certain religious individuals uphold the philosophy put forth in the New Testament and then in the next breath proclaim Friedman and Von Mises to be economic counselors. Friedman in particular had a shitty personal philosophy calling for people to just care about themselves.

[Dust Bunnies]

It is highly anachronistic to concider a typical revivalist jewish country preacher that lived 2000 years ago either a socialist or communist. What on earth could that religious windbag possibly contribute to us now? Vague populists gestures towards "solidarity" with the poor is common place among decivers and conmen, and dosn't count for shit. And in no way does it equate to socialism or communism.

This might be the wrong subforum for this topic now but I'm thinking using this as a springboard to get more religious people to join the Dark Side of the economic scale. We could say we got cookies and Jesus.

[Module]

Why is 'Jesus was a socialist' so often repeated?
Jesus didn't exist.
Classifications of his political views are overall irrelevant.

[al8]

This might be the wrong subforum for this topic now but I'm thinking using this as a springboard to get more religious people to join the Dark Side of the economic scale. We could say we got cookies and Jesus.

I would advise against that because it simply dosn't hold water. And it's dishonest. We should win by truth.

[Tower of Bebel]

Jesus was the leader of a small sect. It was Peter who turned Jesus's sectarian ideas into a new religion which had to compete with the Jewish laws and the Roman empire. Read Bebel and Kautsky if you want some information on how marxists analyse the historical development of Christianity.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1879/woman-socialism/ch03.htm

[F9]

Jesus was a psychological retarted(sorry, i couldnt say it otherwise because i dont know much english)he had some ideas of eguality but that he thought that he was the GOD and he could do magic things etc shows that he wasnt good in mind.Although his existend even as person isnt sure.How can christians answer to why christianity started 200 years after jesus death?They randomely decided to believe to this religion after so much years?

Fuserg9:star:

[RedAnarchist]

Why is 'Jesus was a socialist' so often repeated?
Jesus didn't exist.
Classifications of his political views are overall irrelevant.

Because some people either whitewash over the parts which show him to be a reactionary, are just populists trying to encourage more religious people to become socialists or are just ignorant.

[Tower of Bebel]

Jesus was a psychological retarted(sorry, i couldnt say it otherwise because i dont know much english)he had some ideas of eguality but that he thought that he was the GOD and he could do magic things etc shows that he wasnt good in mind.Although his existend even as person isnt sure.How can christians answer to why christianity started 200 years after jesus death?They randomely decided to believe to this religion after so much years?

Fuserg9:star:

How can you be sure that Jesus believed he was the son of (a) god? Those things were written by people who followed the religion created by Peter after the death of Jesus (in other words: Peter could have been cheating).

I believe Jesus was a random prophet, the leader of a small group of followers (read: sect); yet his words were 'abused' by Peter.

[Dystisis]

How can you be sure that Jesus believed he was the son of (a) god? Those things were written by people who followed the religion created by Peter after the death of Jesus (in other words: Peter could have been cheating).

I believe Jesus was a random prophet, the leader of a small group of followers (read: sect); yet his words were 'abused' by Peter.
I agree, and if you check history you will find there were loads of similar cults around the time/area. Most historians of the time doesn't mention Jesus.

[Dust Bunnies]

Now we're straying off topic, we're talking about the is Jesus real discussion. I'll just say a few things about that. Just because science doesn't give loads of evidence doesn't mean its not real, like some theories about alternate realities, we don't really know but some believe. But we got proof like Jesus on a spoon, Mary on a grilled Cheese, we got more difficult things to understand like why didn't Atilla the Hun burn mess with the Pope.

So back on topic, Jesus's disciples were all not very rich. He told a tax collector who exploited money to give back the money. Could we atleast say Jesus was someone who was against exploitation?

[al8]

No. Rememer, Mark 12:17 Jesus said "Give to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's". Meaning that you are to obey the secular authorities, exept in matters directly pertaining to faith. In effect Jesus supports explitation, the explioters and their State.

Again, most advisable is to drop the backward desert-preacher all together, and encorage others to do so too, instead of trying to pep him up as some sort of socialist in order to gain cheap and superficial political capital. We are in this for the radical transformation of society and rejection of all the old shit.

[Kami]

al8; I seem to remember, from my fundie days (long gone, thank FSM), that the verse you quoted doesn't quite mean that; I recall that the Jewish currency was worth more than the Roman, and what was being said was "Don't donate that dirty foreigner money to the temple, use REAL money!". Which is possibly worse.

EDIT: either that, or my pastor of the time was lying, which isn't exactly unlikely.

[charley63]

Why is 'Jesus was a socialist' so often repeated?
Jesus didn't exist.
Classifications of his political views are overall irrelevant.

I'm new here, and this thread caught my eye. I am a nontheist Quaker, which means I don't take the Bible as infallible nor believe God exists. However, what Jesus's views on social relations were and how that impacts the present is inescapable. Over a billion people are Christians and if we don't try to put forward a socialism that includes them and their source of ethical norms, then socialism will fail, yet again, to win the majority to its cause.

FWIW, I consider Jesus' authentic views to have been proto-anarchistic, as in this passage "Call no man father, for you have one father in heaven. Do not be called Master, for you have only one master, that is, Christ. He that is greatest among you shall be your servant." Most scholars don't consider this saying as coming directly from Jesus, but one created after he was gone by a community of his followers.

A similar passage is "I was hungry and you did not feed me....whatever you do to the least you do to me." This also comes from later developments of Jesus' teachings, not his own words, but it supports a kind of socialism.

The entire Liberation Theology movement has been dedicated to developing an anti-capitalist and anti-authoritarian interpretation of Christianity. The success of this interpretation over against the current Right-Wing gospel is an essential component for the success of socialism. Without socialist Christians, no socialism is possible. The same can be said for Muslim socialism.

Peace! Charley

[Tower of Bebel]

Now we're straying off topic, we're talking about the is Jesus real discussion. I'll just say a few things about that. Just because science doesn't give loads of evidence doesn't mean its not real, like some theories about alternate realities, we don't really know but some believe. But we got proof like Jesus on a spoon, Mary on a grilled Cheese, we got more difficult things to understand like why didn't Atilla the Hun burn mess with the Pope.

So back on topic, Jesus's disciples were all not very rich. He told a tax collector who exploited money to give back the money. Could we atleast say Jesus was someone who was against exploitation?

According to Bebel (Socialism and women; part III: Christianity):


Christ came and Christianity developed. It personified opposition against the beastly materialism that prevailed among the rich and mighty ones in the Roman empire; it represented rebellion against the oppression and disdain of the masses. But since it sprang from Judaism that knew woman only as an oppressed being, and since it was biased by the biblical conception that she is the source of all evil, it preached the disdain of woman; it preached abstinence and destruction of the flesh, that was sinning so much at the time, and with ambiguous expressions pointed to a coming kingdom — conceived by some as a celestial, by others as an earthly kingdom — that would bring universal peace and justice. In the mire of the Roman realm, the seeds of these doctrines were planted in fertile soil. Woman, hoping for liberation and redemption from her position like all the other unfortunates, gladly and eagerly embraced the new faith. Until this day no great and important movement has taken place in all the world in which women did not figure as heroines and martyrs.

Kautsky on the dispute over Jesus (in Foundations of Christianity):


THE factual core of the early Christian reports about Jesus is at best no more than what Tacitus tells us: that in the days of Tiberius a prophet was executed, from whom the sect of Christians took their inspiration. As to what this prophet taught and did, we are not yet able, even today, to say anything definite. Certainly he could not have made the sensation the early Christian reports describe, or Josephus who relates so many trivialities, would certainly have spoken of it. Jesus’ agitation and his execution did not get the slightest attention from his contemporaries. But if Jesus really was an agitator that a sect honored as its champion and guide, the significance of his person must have grown as the sect grew. Now a garland of legends began to form around this person, pious minds weaving into it anything they wished their model had said and done. The more this idealization went on, the more each of the many currents within the sect tried to put into the picture those features that were dearest to it, ill order to lend them the authority of Jesus. The picture of Jesus, at it was painted in the legends that were first passed from mouth to mouth, and then put down in writing, became more and more the picture of a superhuman person, the epitome of all the ideals the new sect developed; but in the process it became an increasingly contradictory picture, whose several features no longer harmonized.

[al8]

al8; I seem to remember, from my fundie days (long gone, thank FSM), that the verse you quoted doesn't quite mean that; I recall that the Jewish currency was worth more than the Roman, and what was being said was "Don't donate that dirty foreigner money to the temple, use REAL money!". Which is possibly worse.

EDIT: either that, or my pastor of the time was lying, which isn't exactly unlikely.

By reading the context I can understand how this can be construed, but it's a really really really far streched. Differences of currencies are not mentioned, or in the context of offerings to temple. It would not surprise me if he'd had to have wrangled it from an alternative translation of the text.

What happens before in the chapter is that the deciples go and find some Jews of a rival sect (Pharisees) and supporters of Harod (the secular ruler) to come to Jesus and drive him up against the wall with try to make him catch his tounge. So they ask; "Yo Jesus, should people pay taxes?" he essentially replies by saying "Hell yeah fo, they should pay up!". But he affirms his conformity in a way and to such extent that he "amazes them".:laugh:

He starts of by asksing them for a coin (dinarius) which they give him. And then he asks them "What do you see on the this side of the coin". They say; Caesar. Then he goes on to say "Render (then) unto Caesar what is Ceasars, and to God what is God's" which means "Do what Ceasar (the governing authorities) requires". That certainly means paying taxes but can also mean rendering military service or whatever the governing authorities see fit.

So thats straight from the horses mouth. But this same groveling conformist attitude is further expounded in Romans chapter 13;


1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

4. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

6. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

7. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

[chimx]

Vague populists gestures towards "solidarity" with the poor is common place among decivers and conmen

You aren't acting in solidarity "with" the poor if you are poor.

Also, bad logic is common place among deceivers and conmen.


Jesus didn't exist.

It would take a blind leap of faith if you think that's true.


He starts of by asksing them for a coin (dinarius) which they give him. And then he asks them "What do you see on the this side of the coin". They say; Caesar. Then he goes on to say "Render (then) unto Caesar what is Ceasars, and to God what is God's" which means "Do what Ceasar (the governing authorities) requires". That certainly means paying taxes but can also mean rendering military service or whatever the governing authorities see fit.

That is not "what it means". That is one of the most discussed passages of the NT and has seen absurdly diverse interpretations. If you knew anything about theological studies you would know that, but clearly you don't.

The great irony of your argumentation is that you approach theology almost identically as Christian fundamentalists, by ignoring context and viewing the Bible literally.

[al8]

Yes there are many interpritations, most far fetched. So what?

[Joby]

What the hell are you all talking about?

His entire life was devoted to pointing out the extreme corruption of the ruling elite, the idea that all people are equal, that monetary possesion means nothing and is disgusting, and that those who look down on others because of social standing will be punished.

He was then captured by the governing theocracy, who saw him as threat to their power base, and was executed. Following this, some of his followers began an Anarchistic commune, as laid out in The Acts.

Recently, there have been millions of Leftists who have looked towards Christ's Philosophy. The current Pope, as a matter of fact, was put in charge of purging out these dangerous ideas, which were mainly popular in Latin America.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is that of Social Justice, and whether he existed or not is of no importance. He is relevant and still progressive, unlike all those Marxists who have come and died with their failed ideology.

[chimx]

Okay, you want to play Captain Ignorant? I'll elaborate on the passage you cited just for you.

Here is the passage in its entirety:


15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

What do we know from this passage? These aren't friendly guys with Jesus. They are spies sent by the Pharisees to trap Jesus by baiting him into speaking out against Roman taxation of Israel.

Why is that important? Because if you knew anything about the NT you would know that Jesus was always critical of Roman taxation. Read Luke 19, it's the story of Zacchaeus in which Jesus persuades the Z-man to stop "sinning" by being a tax collector. In Matthew 5 we see the famous passages where Jesus is talking about "loving your enemy", and he specifically mentions tax collectors as being one of the most significant enemies. In Matthew 18 Jesus says that if your brother sins against you unrepentantly, than you should "treat him like a pagan or a tax collector". Elsewhere he likens tax collectors to prostitutes.

Get the picture? Tax collectors are the bad guys in the whole bible story. You have to look at the context of Roman occupation by making Israel a client state of Caesars. Tax collection would symbolic of this client-state relationship, and rise of Jesus and Christianity is rooted principally in its anti-Roman stance. If you don't believe that, pick up a copy of the Book of Revelation that has interpretive footnotes in it.

Some theologians go so far as to argue that the primary reason Jesus was executed was for his antagonistic attitude towards taxation, and thus Roman occupation. You have to remember that Pontius Pilate was basically the head honcho of tax collecting for Judea and responsible for all revenues in the area.

So for you to hop in here and quote a single bible passage out of context, and try and say that Jesus was pro-taxes and pro-Rome is really quite ludicrous. Your position is entirely antithetical to everything else written in the NT, but honestly I doubt you've read it.

Now, if you want an alternative interpretation that considers Jesus' anti-tax context, I'll be more than happy to oblige you. One is that it is an explicitly anti-Statist passage. I've mentioned the Christian anarchist and theologian Jacques Ellul on this site before, and he specifically writes about this passage in his book called Anarchy and Christianity.

The fact that Jesus is not carrying the foreign currency, but asks the spies to produce it is in itself significant. By showing that the spies are the ones carrying the money, Jesus is saying that if you work with or collaborate state authority, you become morally obligated to it. In a sense: "use money, live by money", or perhaps more accurately (especially considering the following paragraph), "use foreign money, live by foreign rule".

Alternatively some theologians look at the passage and how Jesus asks whose face is on it. The spies reply that it is Caesar. Jesus replies that you should give to caesar what is caesars as a way of saying "get your foreign money out of here".

Others say that you simply have to take this passage with a grain of salt and balance it with all of the NTs anti-Rome and anti-Tax passages, baring in mind that the basis of this passage is men trying to bait Jesus into a legal trap that would force him to be imprisoned or put to death.

[Bastable]

Why is 'Jesus was a socialist' so often repeated?
Jesus didn't exist.
Classifications of his political views are overall irrelevant.

I believe Jesus did exist, but that he was nothing more than a cult leader, that spun off Judaism who liked people to think that he was the "Son of God".

[Kami]

Why is 'Jesus was a socialist' so often repeated?
Jesus didn't exist.
Classifications of his political views are overall irrelevant.
We have evidence that the man, Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus), did exist, however he died around 26-36 CE. More to the point, however, the man-god figure worshipped nowdays certainly doesn't, and the views of a man 2000 years ago, no matter how progressive for the time, are going to be backward and irrelivant now

[Holden Caulfield]

that is not a quotation from Jesus. Its what Paul said, so we can't say its exactly as Jesus said/stood for as Paul is human and it could of had a metaphoric meaning

and Jesus was an a-sexual produce of divinity?
if Jesus is indeed the son of god then he cannot be considered a communist as he is basically the prince of humanity and therefore is a non elected autocract

read 'God & the State'

[Luís Henrique]

Next we're going to wonder if Jesus prefered to travel by train or plane?

How would anyone be a socialist before capitalism even existed?

There is a thing called History, you know.

Luís Henrique

[Holden Caulfield]

socialist ideal have always exsisted, one could strive for an egalitarian society and therefore hold socialist ideals without all the other added anti-capitalist theory

[Luís Henrique]

socialist ideal have always exsisted, one could strive for an egalitarian society and therefore hold socialist ideals without all the other added anti-capitalist theory

No, that's a-historical essentialism.

Who would have been the socialistst in the Ancient World?

Luís Henrique

[Holden Caulfield]

not socialists in name or in theory, but in practice many primitive societies were near egalitarian, and therefore held socialist ideals of benafits for all if all work together

take the plains indians for example..

[Tower of Bebel]

What the hell are you all talking about?

His entire life was devoted to pointing out the extreme corruption of the ruling elite, the idea that all people are equal, that monetary possesion means nothing and is disgusting, and that those who look down on others because of social standing will be punished.

He was then captured by the governing theocracy, who saw him as threat to their power base, and was executed. Following this, some of his followers began an Anarchistic commune, as laid out in The Acts.

Recently, there have been millions of Leftists who have looked towards Christ's Philosophy. The current Pope, as a matter of fact, was put in charge of purging out these dangerous ideas, which were mainly popular in Latin America.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is that of Social Justice, and whether he existed or not is of no importance. He is relevant and still progressive, unlike all those Marxists who have come and died with their failed ideology.

How do you know this isn't just more than a goodwilling interpretation of the Bibel? Why are Jesus and his small band of followers different from the other sects and prophets?

[chimx]

Who would have been the socialistst in the Ancient World?

The Gracchus brothers are the closest people that come to mind in the ancient world, but I agree it is anachronistic to think in such terms. It's wiser to look at the birth of Christianity in terms of Roman occupation of Judea. Jewish revolts occurred often during that period. Christians were simply a facet of the anti-Roman culture.

[Unicorn]

not socialists in name or in theory, but in practice many primitive societies were near egalitarian, and therefore held socialist ideals of benafits for all if all work together

take the plains indians for example..
They were societies in the Foraging Mode of Production.

[Holden Caulfield]

my, not clear, point was that the ideas could be seen as similar to those of socialism in regards to egalitarianism etc,

so Jesus could in theory hold socialist ideals if he had said in his time that everybody should be tolerant and that wealth should be shared etc, that is ideals that would fit into the modern socialist theory not views that are socialist as socialism didnt exsist in his time as Luis said

[Joby]

How do you know this isn't just more than a goodwilling interpretation of the Bibel? Why are Jesus and his small band of followers different from the other sects and prophets?

Uh, because he still has billions of followers throughout the world and is worshipped as a God, for starters.

He's a much more important figure than any other Leftist, by far.

[Killer Enigma]

No jesus was a ****.
Seeing as you appear to be a highly informed and intelligent individual, you are undoubtedly aware of how ad hominem attacks are the best means of convincing others of your positions and winning debates. After all, it's always better to use an unwarranted, insulting maxim in lieu of an actual statement of value.


Who the fuck suports slavery ( unicorn beat me too it)
I am interested to see your warrant for this claim. Perhaps you could give me a citation on quote where Jesus Christ says that he supports slavery.



abuseing women
This is both unwarranted and wrong. As Religious Tolerance.org noted in a dissertation on "Women in the Teachings of Jesus", "He overthrew centuries of Jewish law and custom. He almost always treated women and men as equals. He violated numerous Old Testament regulations, which required gender inequality. He ignored ritual impurity laws by curing a woman who suffered from untreatable menstrual bleeding. He talked freely to women -- even foreign women. Jesus taught women -- a forbidden act. Of the ten or so followers of Jesus whose characters are developed in the Gospels, about half were women. The author of Luke and Acts told many pairs of parallel stories, in which one referred to a woman, the other to a man. He appeared first to women after his resurrection. "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" receive the first apostolic commission of any human - to tell the good news of the resurrection to the disciples." (1 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sinpars3.htm))


and then starts a movement that is responsiblie for causeing misary and pain world wide on the false pretense of being sent by "god".
I cannot help but notice the irony of a poster (named Comrade Joe, no less) on a forum dedicated to the revolutionary left, a political distinction paved with leaders like Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, criticizing Christ for the actions taken by rogue followers of his beliefs. Are we to blame Marx, Bakunin, Engels, Kropotkin, Goldman, Proudhoun, etc. for what some of their followers did using their ideas? If you criticize Christ for this, you must levy the same criticism against those figures I mentioned, as many of their followers have "[caused] misary (sic) and pain world wide".


We should kill the idea of christ and this time he wont be coming back.
That's fairly intolerant of you.

[chimx]

Are we going to continue with the obscene anachronisms? First asking if Jesus was a socialist, and then condemning him for not speaking out against slavery?

Should we also condemn Marx and Engels for homophobia? Proudhon for anti-semitism or his misogyny? Of course not. We condemn the homophobia of Marx and Engels, but we also realize the historical and cultural context from which these views spawned.

Slavery was the norm 2000 years ago, geniuses. And guess what? The church condemns it today, and has for a while now.

[eyedrop]

Are we going to continue with the obscene anachronisms? First asking if Jesus was a socialist, and then condemning him for not speaking out against slavery?

Should we also condemn Marx and Engels for homophobia? Proudhon for anti-semitism or his misogyny? Of course not. We condemn the homophobia of Marx and Engels, but we also realize the historical and cultural context from which these views spawned.

Slavery was the norm 2000 years ago, geniuses. And guess what? The church condemns it today, and has for a while now.

While I agree with you there's the small problem that the wacko's believe that he was God's son. Shouldn't the son of God be able to stand above historical and cultural context, or is God also adhearing to the cultural contexts of the times? If he was just a man then it's quite understandable, if I had lived on those times I would also have been a homophobic. But it's a moot discussion since we don't even know if it's likely that Jesus even existed. We don't know what he did or didn't do from a credible source.

[chimx]

Most scholars agree that Jesus the person probably existed. The synoptic gospels are generally believed to have two data sources: the Gospel of Mark and an unknown "Q document". The gospel of Matthew and Luke are generally thought to have been written from Mark and Q, while John was written substantially later.

So until we find Q, are best bet is Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, but scholars usually attribute it to St. Mark who was a disciple of St. Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus. Mark had been Peter's secretary, and most of the Gospel of Mark is just that. So we are not seeing too great a leap from oral tradition to written tradition and only making the jump via a single person (Peter).

So yes, I think that it is certainly a significant source, and of course there are other documents that didn't make it into the Bible that back up the idea that Jesus was a real person.

However, it should still be emphasized that it is not Jesus who is writing these things down. The Bible wasn't written by any of these dudes back in 30 C.E. It is just a collection of writings that the church put together back in like the 4th century. There are lots and lots of Gospels and documents that never even made it into the Gospel. Christians today realize this, and this is certainly a reason why most don't literally believe everything the bible says. They acknowledge that it can have errors because it was authored and compiled by regular joes.

[Luís Henrique]

Uh, because he still has billions of followers throughout the world

Those would be followers of Paul.

Luís Henrique

[Bud Struggle]

Those would be followers of Paul.

Luís Henrique

That's an interesting comment.

The rise of Protestantism was the victory of Paul over Peter.
The rise of Evengelicals is the victory of Paul over Christ.

[Unicorn]

Are we going to continue with the obscene anachronisms? First asking if Jesus was a socialist, and then condemning him for not speaking out against slavery?

Should we also condemn Marx and Engels for homophobia? Proudhon for anti-semitism or his misogyny? Of course not. We condemn the homophobia of Marx and Engels, but we also realize the historical and cultural context from which these views spawned.

Slavery was the norm 2000 years ago, geniuses. And guess what? The church condemns it today, and has for a while now.
There were progressive people 2000 years ago who fought against slavery. Spartacus was one of them. Jesus wasn't.

[eyedrop]

Most scholars agree that Jesus the person probably existed. The synoptic gospels are generally believed to have two data sources: the Gospel of Mark and an unknown "Q document". The gospel of Matthew and Luke are generally thought to have been written from Mark and Q, while John was written substantially later.

So until we find Q, are best bet is Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, but scholars usually attribute it to St. Mark who was a disciple of St. Peter, who was a disciple of Jesus. Mark had been Peter's secretary, and most of the Gospel of Mark is just that. So we are not seeing too great a leap from oral tradition to written tradition and only making the jump via a single person (Peter).

So yes, I think that it is certainly a significant source, and of course there are other documents that didn't make it into the Bible that back up the idea that Jesus was a real person.

However, it should still be emphasized that it is not Jesus who is writing these things down. The Bible wasn't written by any of these dudes back in 30 C.E. It is just a collection of writings that the church put together back in like the 4th century. There are lots and lots of Gospels and documents that never even made it into the Gospel. Christians today realize this, and this is certainly a reason why most don't literally believe everything the bible says. They acknowledge that it can have errors because it was authored and compiled by regular joes.

Seems fine by me. Assess it as one would assess any other historical text. The thing I disagree with is that most christians believe some parts of the bible without adequate reasons.

If one don't believe all the parts of God and his nature in the bible you are left with a philosophical God that didn't interact with the universe. In fact exactly like what a Muslim who got his view of God from his philosophy and not the Koran.

[Black Dagger]

Jesus was a Socialist or Communist. You all are probably saying WTF at this point. Jesus believed in helping the poor and that the rich shall be cast down, which is a core idea of Socialism and Communism. discuss

I disagree.

Helping the poor is a core idea of philanthropy... communism is more about abolishing wealth, that is off class society - so rather than 'helping' the poor, we want to abolish what it means to be poor in the first place! And whilst defending the material interests of the working class, mutual-aid, and soldarity are all absolutely vital, our long-term goal nevertheless remains: to destroy capitalism. Not to make things more sufferable for the poorest amongst us, that's where the communists and Jesus part ways.

[cappin]

Yeah, but he developed the concept of Christianity and for that, he must be a capitalist bourgeois.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Seeing as you appear to be a highly informed and intelligent individual, you are undoubtedly aware of how ad hominem attacks are the best means of convincing others of your positions and winning debates. After all, it's always better to use an unwarranted, insulting maxim in lieu of an actual statement of value.

Sorry man never wanted to make Jesus cry or anything.



I am interested to see your warrant for this claim. Perhaps you could give me a citation on quote where Jesus Christ says that he supports slavery.

Here be some bible verses backing slavery


When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. (Exod. 21:20-21)


Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)



A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24) <-- this one was written by one of Mr christs 12 apostles.

The earlier ones i quoted were in the old testament and





Matthew 2142 Jesus saith to them, Did ye never readin the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

again

[quote=The Bible]Matthew 2229 Jesus answered and said to them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Therefore Jesus backs the old testament including the bullshit about slavery.




This is both unwarranted and wrong. As Religious Tolerance.org noted in a dissertation on "Women in the Teachings of Jesus", "He overthrew centuries of Jewish law and custom. He almost always treated women and men as equals.

If almost treated women as equals and is supposed to be the greatest thing ever then humanity's kind of fucked.

And i have no respect for one who almost treats people of other genders equally





He violated numerous Old Testament regulations, which required gender inequality. He ignored ritual impurity laws by curing a woman who suffered from untreatable menstrual bleeding.

I may be mistaken but were those laws not cultural and what old testament regulations to he violate.?


He talked freely to women -- even foreign women.

which showed he almost treat them as humans


Jesus taught women -- a forbidden act. Of the ten or so followers of Jesus whose characters are developed in the Gospels, about half were women. The author of Luke and Acts told many pairs of parallel stories, in which one referred to a woman, the other to a man. He appeared first to women after his resurrection. "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" receive the first apostolic commission of any human - to tell the good news of the resurrection to the disciples." (1 (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sinpars3.htm))

Did he almost allow them to become his apostles



I cannot help but notice the irony of a poster (named Comrade Joe, no less) on a forum dedicated to the revolutionary left, a political distinction paved with leaders like Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot, criticizing Christ for the actions taken by rogue followers of his beliefs. Are we to blame Marx, Bakunin, Engels, Kropotkin, Goldman, Proudhoun, etc. for what some of their followers did using their ideas? If you criticize Christ for this, you must levy the same criticism against those figures I mentioned, as many of their followers have "[caused] misary (sic) and pain world wide".

No we are not to blame marx and crew for there followers because marx never claimed to be 100% right 100% all the time and if he did he was lieng. Also marx was human - not bull shit



That's fairly intolerant of you.

Good

[Joby]

Helping the poor is a core idea of philanthropy... communism is more about abolishing wealth, that is off class society - so rather than 'helping' the poor, we want to abolish what it means to be poor in the first place! And whilst defending the material interests of the working class, mutual-aid, and soldarity are all absolutely vital, our long-term goal nevertheless remains: to destroy capitalism. Not to make things more sufferable for the poorest amongst us, that's where the communists and Jesus part ways.

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)

I would say that many Christians have the same goal as many Communists, ie a stateless, hateless, egalitarian society. It's the means, not the end, which seems to seperate them.

[freakazoid]

I would say that many Christians have the same goal as many Communists, ie a stateless, hateless, egalitarian society. It's the means, not the end, which seems to seperate them.

I wouldn't say that many Christians have the same goal as many Communists, which makes me sad because I think that they should. :(

[al8]

Slavery was the norm 2000 years ago, geniuses. And guess what? The church condemns it today, and has for a while now.

Yeah but fucking took them awile, and only after being draged alot. They are normally the last ones to embrace change or any progression.

What we are saying we see no way that Jesus was even annywhere close to being an equivolent of a communist within the restrainst of the time he lived in. Where not saying anyone could be a communist in that period, since that is anachronistic.

[chimx]

That's not true al8. It was Christians that were leading the abolitionist movement. Everybody loved John Brown here on this forum. He did what he did because of his Christian values.


What we are saying we see no way that Jesus was even annywhere close to being an equivolent of a communist within the restrainst of the time he lived in.

This doesn't even make sense. We are talking about pre-feudal client states in the middle east 2000 years ago. Nobody was a communist, or even close to a communist.

If you want to look at Jesus politically, than he was adamantly opposed to Roman occupation of Judea and Christianity could be compared to national liberation movements of today.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Jesus is the following:

50% Neo-Con
25% One of the roots of all evil
10% Slave-Supporter
10% Hypocrite
5% Hippie

[Luís Henrique]

Here be some bible verses backing slavery

The Bible was not written by Jesus of Nazareth.

In fact, we only know a handful of sentences by him; they reveal an intelligent, witty, humourful, sometimes sarcastic, guy; also able to feel indignant about unjustice. They do not hint at any coherent philosophy, politics, or ethics. If anything, they seem to point to someone close to Greek Cynicism. You could probably substitute Diogenes tirades for Jesus' words, without too much loss of content.

So people who claim to be "Christians" are certainly not Christians in the sence that some are Marxist, or Freudian. They do not have a coherent body of doctrine set by Christ to refer to. In practice, those people are Pauline; the doctrine they rely on was set by Paul of Tarsus.

And Paul of Tarsus had a personality - and quite likely ideas - extremely different from, perhaps even antithetic to, that of Jesus of Nazareth.

But none of those people could be socialists (or capitalists) more than they could support Tottenham Hottspurs or be fond of pizza. Thinking otherwise is gross anachronism.

Luís Henrique

[commiesinger]

I don't believe he is the son of God but many of his teachings are socialist by nature. Don't forget that Jesus may not have said he was the son of god because the bible is written generations after and for the purpose of recruiting believers and suppressing the pagan religion and common ideas ex. women are lower then men. they basically banked on that subculture of Jesus followers who couldn't agree on what he was but could agree that he was a great man. he taught that all people are equal, anyone can forgive sin not just a priest but everyone. He would sit down to eat with sinners, prostitutes, or anyone not accepted by the main Jewish community. He is known for fighting for the down and out as we communists do for the working class.He knew that if you give someone the tools and the know how they can support themselves but if you just give them a hand out then they will want more tomorrow. He tried to teach us the tools and know how of religion so we don't have to keep going to upper class priests. Religion is not strictly about following someones rules on how to live. this is shown in his protest against the upper class Jewish priests who insist that you are not a true believer if you don't follow everything they say about religion. He fought for those who would be prosecuted for not eating kosher or not donating enough to the church. He looked for support among the down and out. His Teachings were that Religion is about believing not donating or doing the rituals down to every last detail. He taught that god only cares that you believe nothing more.

Had he started a country i would imagine, it would have been very close to Communism.

[eyedrop]

I don't believe he is the son of God but many of his teachings are socialist by nature. Don't forget that Jesus may not have said he was the son of god because the bible is written generations after and for the purpose of recruiting believers and suppressing the pagan religion and common ideas ex. women are lower then men. they basically banked on that subculture of Jesus followers who couldn't agree on what he was but could agree that he was a great man. he taught that all people are equal, anyone can forgive sin not just a priest but everyone. He would sit down to eat with sinners, prostitutes, or anyone not accepted by the main Jewish community. He is known for fighting for the down and out as we communists do for the working class.He knew that if you give someone the tools and the know how they can support themselves but if you just give them a hand out then they will want more tomorrow. He tried to teach us the tools and know how of religion so we don't have to keep going to upper class priests. Religion is not strictly about following someones rules on how to live. this is shown in his protest against the upper class Jewish priests who insist that you are not a true believer if you don't follow everything they say about religion. He fought for those who would be prosecuted for not eating kosher or not donating enough to the church. He looked for support among the down and out. His Teachings were that Religion is about believing not donating or doing the rituals down to every last detail. He taught that god only cares that you believe nothing more.

Had he started a country i would imagine, it would have been very close to Communism.

First you start of with saying that the bible is very unaccurate because it's written generations after him, and then you go ahead and quess how he was as a person and present it as truth?

[Fraushai]

What kind of socialist supports slavery?

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.



Marx had maids, Engels certainly did exploit surplus values from workers in his garment factory; that doesn't exclude them from being communists in spirit.

[Peacekeeper]

All the prophet's were communists, including the prophet Jesus pbuh and the prophet Muhammad pbuh.

[Random Precision]

All the prophet's were communists, including the prophet Jesus pbuh and the prophet Muhammad pbuh.

No. Communists aim for a post-capitalist society based on the advancement of industrial production to end the material wants of all people so that humanity can reach its highest potential. It would be incredibly stupid to think that Jesus or Muhammad aimed toward such a society, or that our goals would mean anything to them.

[Kami]

All the prophet's were communists, including the prophet Jesus pbuh and the prophet Muhammad pbuh.[citation needed]
fixed it for you.
seriously though, as random precision pointed out quite adeptly, it's simply impossible for them to be communist. Why, exactly, you thought this to be the case I'd like to hear.

[Uncle Hank]

The directives and goals of socialism are far beyond Jesus' "radical" ideas. The point of his teaching was to enter The Kingdom of Heaven, and nothing more. Socialism and Communism have a much greater calling.

[Baconator]

The directives and goals of socialism are far beyond Jesus' "radical" ideas. The point of his teaching was to enter The Kingdom of Heaven, and nothing more. Socialism and Communism have a much greater calling.

Dan 2:44 says that Jesus will reign as King of a kingdom on earth.
Jesus was most definitely a collectivist. I think a closer description of 'god's plan' was to have a 'monarcho-socialism' of sorts. The New Testicle also says that Jesus considered his servants as actual slaves since he inferred he was the their master. Basically its tyranny.

[Dimentio]

Say that Jesus was a socialist to make masses positive = Good strategy

Believe that Jesus was a socialist = Bad Strategy

[Random Precision]

Say that Jesus was a socialist to make masses positive = Good strategy

Believe that Jesus was a socialist = Bad Strategy

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that revolutionaries should lie to people about Jesus' politics to get them on our side?

I mean, I'm "soft" on religion, and even I think that would be a terrible mistake.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Dan 2:44 says that Jesus will reign as King of a kingdom on earth.
Jesus was most definitely a collectivist. I think a closer description of 'god's plan' was to have a 'monarcho-socialism' of sorts. The New Testicle also says that Jesus considered his servants as actual slaves since he inferred he was the their master. Basically its tyranny.

Sounds nothing at all like communism.

[sonicbluetm]

I think lying to the common people is always a bad strategy. Not because it wouldn't work, heavens no. It's worked wonderfully in the west at large and continues to work wonders (wonders like the Iraq war, for instance). But because it's not something I would term a socialist policy.

[Nietzsche's Ghost]

I've got a questioin about this. Why do we care whether or not a man who died over 1000 years ago is a communist or a socialist? In my mind it is irrelevant to this day and age. Besides that he helped start a religion that has killed hundreds of thousands of people(even though his philosophy was probably skewed over the years).

[sonicbluetm]

I believe that something that millions of people believe cannot be rendered irrelevant. They make it relevant by their believing it, no matter how stupid it is. It is the sad reality, I think, that it has to be respected, not because it merits respect, but because such multitudes of people can make your life a misery if you disrespect their views, should they choose to do so.

If you can prove conclusively that their guru was a socialist, there is a pretty big chance that they may be more partial to your views as a result.

[Nietzsche's Ghost]

If you can prove conclusively that their guru was a socialist, there is a pretty big chance that they may be more partial to your views as a result.[/quote]

That's a good point.