The answer is NO.
No.
You are not a communist or socialist if you voluntarily give up or share your wealth with others.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Socialism is involuntary coercion. Monasticism is voluntary cooperation.
No.
There is a world of difference between giving freely of oneself and taking from others to give.
“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.”
If you read this entire Gospel passage in context, God was prepared to bless this man abundantly had the man obeyed what Jesus instructed him to do, but the man chose to put his trust in his wealth, and put his wealth ahead of God.
There’s nothing in that passage that suggests wealth itself is evil. In fact, God would’ve provided for the man in even more abundance than what he originally possessed.
Not only are unchurched socialists wrongy using government power to nullify the 10th Commandment, basically “Do not covet your neighbors possessions,” but Jesus taught in Matthew 20:1-16, particularly verse 15, that people have the right to do what they want with their own money.
Capitalism is closest to the economic system of heaven. Capitalism provides a person (d) to provide for their needs and the needs of their loved ones. The excess can help through trade provide for the needs of others. The individual liberty of true lassie a fair capitalism grants the individual the opportunity to pursue their talents and desires the ability to conduct commerce in their self interest lifting themselves and others.
Jesus many times AFFIRMED property rights. He recognized the right of people to withhold from giving what was theirs, even from God.
Since earthy government was not involved, the answer is an obvious “no.”
I too say “No” here, but, how do we work in the events of Acts 5.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%205&version=NIV
“Ananias and Sapphira
5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.”
Last I checked, Jesus never held a government position, nor did he ever advocate that government play a larger role in subsidizing people.
Private charity =/= Government charity.