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.
Where, precisely, do you find crony corporatism in scripture? If Joseph was blessed was he not blessed with affluence? You have admitted as much. Carpenters were among the highest social caste in the ancient world. They provided virtually all of the acoutrements of comfortable living.
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.”
Jesus was an enormous "celebrity," and even the Romans were aware of his notoriety. "The whole world has gone after him" is attestation enough of this fact.
His garments were valuable souvenirs, and the Roman soldiers knew it.
In our times any discussion of Christ and property really means Marx.
Roman soldiers were also often drafted to serve and weren’t well paid. They would have been willing to steal the dead’s clothes because that would have been one thing they wouldn’t have had to buy.
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.”
Why do you assume the downtrodden were his primary target? His message was appealing to all people regardless of social condition.
Oh...so Jesus—a literal heir to the throne of Kind David—would have been like Joel Olsteen or Billy Graham? A counselor to the rich and famous?
People forget that he was not a “simple” man. He was a direct descendant of the bloodline of David. Not a simple blood line at all.
People read the bible but have no understanding of what the words mean.
Nonsense. Read the scripture. The garment was not torn because it was a single uncut piece, of great value.
I didn’t say He was primarily aiming at the downtrodden, but his message would have had the most appeal to those in the most need. When a person is wealthy, they tend to think of themselves as self-sufficient and not in need.
The Roman Empire is highly exemplary of corporatism, not just of territory mind you.
I never said that Joseph was not wealthy nor ever inferred Jesus to be a beggar. He was not of the Judeo-Roman elite, however, like the apostle Paul was.
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.
Precisely. It was not thet they withheld part of their resources. They lied about it.
Well there is this little scripture:
2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
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.