Posted on 04/05/2014 1:42:45 PM PDT by crazylibertarian
A member of a group sent this to me in response to a previous posting: Weird to suggest scripture on your side. Jesus made fun of people who accumulate wealth. Nothing in bible suggests Jesus would oppose inheritance or income tax. So many people pretend to be bible scholars without reading the bible. Bible explains unequivocally that all the early Christians lived as communists. So raise he'll about the need for no income or inheritance taxes if you want. You might be right. But you are a liar if you claim Jesus is on your side. New pope seems to understand Jesus unlike so many other church leaders.
Roderick T. Beaman (AKA crazylibertarian): Over the years, many socialists, progressives, liberals, etc. have used this argument as some kind of divine insight into the thoughts of Jesus. I call it sophistry at its basest.
First of all, Jesus never mocked anyone; the wealthy, poor, sinners, the holy, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, doctors, lawyers & Indian chiefs, etc. He warned against devotion to wealth as did Paul who never said, “Money is the root of all evil,” but rather, “The love of money is the root of all evil,” a much different idea. I don’t completely agree with either statement but that is another discussion.
For Jesus part, he never took a position against wealth or the wealthy. In fact, among his disciples were Mary Magdalene whom many today consider not a prostitute but a wealthy woman and Matthew, a tax collector, also wealthy and many others .
There’s the story from Mark 10, 17 & Matthew 19, 16: where He told the wealthy young man to sell all he had and give it the poor and then follow him but the man didn’t. Jesus said it would be very hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The reader should ponder, who would have a tougher choice to face in giving up all he has, a poor man or a rich man? I suggest this is what He meant.
Like many of Jesus’ messages and illustrative episodes, there is a lot of room for interpretation but it must be done in the context of His entire message & life among which is The Anointing at Bethany, where the woman poured expensive perfumed oil on His head. The apostles grumbled that it could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus admonishes them and allows her to continue.
Everyone should remember that Jesus and his earthly father, Joseph, were both carpenters, craftsmen. There is no way that they produced all of their needs for life in Nazareth so there is no doubt that they engaged in trade, most likely using the normal historically most common medium - money. Jesus never once spoke against trade! Any kind of free trade is a direct antithesis of socialism and progressivism. You can not have both.
Finally, any assertion ‘that all the early Christians lived as communists’ is demonstrably false. Many of them did elect to live in communes, especially the evangelists, perhaps from necessity, but there can be no doubt whatsoever, that many just absorbed Jesus’ message in living their lives as Jesus’ wished. He even told the tax collector to take nothing more than a fair share. What does that tell you other than that he accepted that people should go on living their lives but guided by His principles?
In fact, you can go through the entire Old Testament and find that scripture never rejected simultaneous wealth and holiness. Just read The Book of Job. The story of Lazarus is an example of someone who didn’t learn the truth about wealth.Another member of a group sent this to me in response to a previous posting: Weird to suggest scripture on your side. Jesus made fun of people who accumulate wealth. Nothing in bible suggests Jesus would oppose inheritance or income tax. So many people pretend to be bible scholars without reading the bible. Bible explains unequivocally that all the early Christians lived as communists. So raise he'll about the need for no income or inheritance taxes if you want. You might be right. But you are a liar if you claim Jesus is on your side. New pope seems to understand Jesus unlike so many other church leaders.
The answer is NO.
No.
You are not a communist or socialist if you voluntarily give up or share your wealth with others.
Who thinks up this ignorant nonsense?
Jesus was a wealthy man who wore the most expensive garments and ate with wealthy benefactors. For him, wealth was not a measure of sin nor was poverty an essential ingredient of sanctity. The politics of economics are unsuitable as a measure of Christianity.
“Bible explains unequivocally that all the early Christians lived as communists”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Communism and socialism are the forced confiscation of other people’s legally acquired property and the requirement that individuals give up personal freedom for the benefit of those in the government.
Voluntary sharing, donating, etc. have nothing to do with socialism or communism. Every communist government in the history of the world has tried to destroy Christians and their religion. These are just more politically correct lies.
No, Jesus was not part of the upper class when living as a man; otherwise he would have stood out starkly (Matthew 11:8 and Luke 7:25 refer specifically to John the Baptist, but given Jesus’ ability to blend in with ordinary Jews, He wasn’t a wearer of the most expensive garments either nor did he “live delicately”). Never mind Nazareth not having a good reputation during Jesus’ time (remember John 1:46?)
I believe Jesus was a commie. Why, he gave away all those fishes and bread when he fed the masses and multiplied the wine too!
Read the transcript. His garments were of the finest weave. He ate with wealthy patrons. I did not say he was of the upper class. I said he was a wealthy man. Clearly he lived a life of sacrifice and service. He was never in need of earthly sustenance. Even the fish gave him money to pay his taxes.
Jesus was friends with Joseph of Arimethia, friends who was quite wealthy man. There’s plenty of written text aside from our bible...volumes that were not included by the council of Nicea, that shed a lot of light about Jesus and his younger years. Author Glenn Kimball has written and researched in depth.
Probably has to do with the fundamental drivers (psychopathy, narcissism, covetous, lust, selfishness, etc) of many wealthy/powerful people and the choices they made along the way.
The only reason Martha Stewart went to jail is because when caught with her hand in the cookie jar, her first instinct was to do what always worked for her in the past which was to lie about it. When Bill Clinton got caught with his pants down, his first instinct was to do what always worked for him in the past which was to lie about it.
Why then did Roman Soldiers cast lots for his garmets?
While I am on the subject, how dare you infer that Jesus was a beggar, requiring gifts to continue his ministry. There is no evidence of that anywhere in scripture.
He didn’t eat exclusively with “wealthy patrons”, obviously. Note his opposition to the religious elite, too—mainly on matters of doctrine.
No.
Next stupid question from them?
As far as this statement, New pope seems to understand Jesus unlike so many other church leaders, that is not what popes, including this one, have ever taught.
From Pope Leo XIII:
4. To remedy these wrongs the socialists, working on the poor man's envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies. They hold that by thus transferring property from private individuals to the community, the present mischievous state of things will be set to rights, inasmuch as each citizen will then get his fair share of whatever there is to enjoy. But their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that were they carried into effect the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are, moreover, emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community.
5. It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man's little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.
(snip)
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. This being established, we proceed to show where the remedy sought for must be found.
From the current Pope:
The Social Doctrine does not tolerate that the useful are the ones who produce and the social question is left to the State or to welfare actions or volunteer work.
What is confusing to the simple-minded is the following passage from Acts:
[Act 4:32-35 KJV] 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.
The simple-minded claim that the above supports the idea of socialism, but nothing could be farther from the truth. What these simple-minded folks fail to recognize is the following:
This is a HUGE divergence from what the socialists attempt to foist upon the simple-minded.
No, I inferred no such thing. Joseph was a well-to-do businessman, clearly; but he was a hands-on type rather than your typical “crony” corporate type, with Jesus actively involved in the family trade. Joseph had no problem affording trips from Nazareth to Bethlehem (for the census), or to Jerusalem (for the festivals), or even to Egypt (to escape Herod’s pogrom).
Socialist and Communists swap God for Cesar in Mark 12:17. AKA they twist it into Render unto Cesar what is Gods....
Even Jesus made a point of keeping Government out of the duty of charity.
Christ was influential, because His message was so radical in His day that he gathered an army amongst the downtrodden. It shouldn’t be surprising that even the wealthy and powerful would be curious as to why, wherever Christ was, dozens and hundreds and thousands would always flock,to hear him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.